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

I'm confused.

 

According to the message Herbert forwarded from Cynthia Hodgson:

 

"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://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2010Jul/0036.html 

 

When I first read it I took it to mean the URI would contain a
concatenation of metadata elements. The RFC, however, makes an opposite
appeal in favor of URI opacity:

 

"I^2 Feature/Attribute: Be opaque - The identifier should be an opaque
string of characters."

http://www.niso.org/workrooms/i2/midtermreport/I2midterm2010.pdf 

 

Because they used the word "should", I assume they are still debating
the issue. My suspicion is they never will decide and will invent some
new abstraction that requires a new infrastructure to sort out.

 

If the URIs are opaque and there is a registry to back up the system,
then I^2 identififers really should be HTTP URIs that return information
about the institution. See my mockup from yesterday for a sensible
Linked Data solution involving opaque URIs to registry data.

 

Maybe I didn't look close enough, but I didn't find anything in their
reports resembling potential identifier examples to help clarify the
opaque/non-opaque misunderstanding.

 

Jeff

 

From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of ZENG, MARCIA
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 11:20 AM
To: William Waites; public-xg-lld@w3.org
Subject: Re: Institutional Identifier (I2) comments (was: RE:
Institutional Identifier Re: [Digipres] NISO Seeking Feedback on ...)

 

Hi, all, Thanks for the comments.  I will try to incorporate into the
final comment.

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] 

Cheers,
Marcia

[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/

On 7/30/10 5:52 AM, "William Waites" <william.waites@okfn.org> wrote:

On 10-07-30 10:38, Jodi Schneider wrote:
> "The URI should be included in the final version of the metadata"
>
> Is it useful to make some reasons clear? i.e. to explain why it is "a
> valuable addition to the standard"? Or is that already clear to the
> NISO I2 working group?

How about:

"Dereferencing the URI with an HTTP request is the simplest and most
straightforward way to obtain a copy of the metadata"

On URI vs. URL, does it make sense at all to suggest the registration of
a urn namespace with IANA? Or do non-dereferenceable URIs like that just
muddy the waters?

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/