Re: Institutional Identifier (I2) comments (was: RE: Institutional Identifier Re: [Digipres] NISO Seeking Feedback on ...)

On 10-07-30 16:19, ZENG, MARCIA wrote:
> One thing I need to point out is that the standard is for
> institutional identifiers and those 'metadata' elements are for
> identifying the organizations.  It is not about obtaining metadata. [1]
>
> [1]    The NISO Institutional Identifier (I2) is proposed as a
> globally unique, robust, scalable and interoperable identifier with
> the sole purpose of uniquely identifying institutions. The I2 consists
> of two parts
>      * an identifier standard that includes the metadata needed to
> uniquely identify the organization -- including documenting
> relationships with other institutions that are critical for
> establishing identity -- and
>     * a framework for implementation and use.
> ] _http://www.niso.org/workrooms/i2/midtermreport/_

I admit that when I read this in the report I had trouble parsing it.

Surely there needs to be some way, given an identifier, to obtain
the metadata. Otherwise it would be rather hard to use it to
identify the organisations.

They do seem to be somewhat conscious of the need to do this:

    The Working Group is also tasked with the implementation of the
    identifier, including identifying the host and technical needs [...]

I take this to mean that they intend to operate the registry that
will have some sort of network interface...

If they don't mint URIs that dereference to the metadata, sooner
or later someone else is going to do it. Then we'll have a bunch
of non-authoritative sets of URIs pointing to the same thing
with varying qualities and reliability. There's a chance to avoid
the mess if they do this from the start.

Cheers,
-w

-- 
William Waites           <william.waites@okfn.org>
Mob: +44 789 798 9965    Open Knowledge Foundation
Fax: +44 131 464 4948                Edinburgh, UK

RDF Indexing, Clustering and Inferencing in Python
		http://ordf.org/