On 2/9/12 11:50 AM, Hickey,Thom wrote:
> I like actionable URIs as identifiers, but agree that the creator of the
> identifier may be better left out of the URI.
> PURLs and VIAF IDs are examples of identifiers that use a domain name
> specific to themselves, not the agency maintaining them (in both cases
The difference that I see between PURLs and VIAF IDs is that VIAF IDs
are limited to the VIAF service, while anyone can create a PURL, and
there is not a single application for things identified by PURLs.
It seems to me that many URIs tend to be created around a single service
http://xmlns.com/foaf/ for FOAF
http://rdvocab.info/ for RDA elements and vocabularies
http://dewey.info/ for the Dewey in RDF
Something in the URI gives you context. With PURLs that is not the case.
(Ditto URIs under vocab.org, which also make use of the PURL service.)
So here is yet another area of "best practices" worth discussing. I see
nothing wrong with
http://id.loc.gov/ for LC authorities
because LC is truly the owner for these vocabularies. VIAF makes sense
to me because OCLC *hosts* the service but is not the owner of the data.
It would make sense to me that ISBNs would have URIs under
http://isbn.org rather than http://bowker.com.
At the same time, if I needed to create a single RDF property to fill
out my metadata (for example, if I was using DCterms for everything
else) then it would make sense to me to use http://purl.org or
http://vocab.org as a simple way to obtain a URI, rather than getting a
separate domain name (that I might forget to renew).
I don't, however, have a rule for this, nor even an idea of what are the
practical reasons for choosing one of these possibilities over another.
Having a best practice doesn't mean that you would force people to
follow it, it means that if people are pondering their choices you give
them useful guidance. Why make everyone spend energy thinking about this?
> The separate domain names make them much cooler.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Juha Hakala
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:53 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] The German National Library's response
> Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Juha, thanks for the info regarding IETF activity. The issue I see
>> URNs is not the structure but the minting: should libraries begin to
>> link their data I see a need for thousands or even tens of thousands
>> identifiers (hundreds of thousands?) when we figure out a way to make
>> library holdings available to the linked data space. Surely we'll need
>> at least an identifier for each library. At least URIs piggy-back on
>> domain system, which already exists.
> Yes, a lot of identifiers will be needed. And if someone prefers to use
> URNs for this purpose, RFC 3188bis (the revised namespace registration
> request for National Bibliography Numbers, NBNs) makes it clear that
> these identifiers can be assigned to data elements as well.
> Where these URN:NBNs resolve to and what kind of services they will be
> able to support will depend on the technical infrastructure available.
>> Definitely, this gives us something to think about, and I have no
>> that we could develop some kind of naming/identifying system to carry
>> this data. Obviously the first step is to figure out what we need to
>> identify, a kind of requirements study.
> Yes; and in addition we may need to consider what kind of services the
> identified things require.
>> What I dislike about the persistent identifier is that you lose the
>> to the originating agency that you have in the URI. That might be just
>> "human thing" - that I feel better when looking at the URI that I can
>> see WHO is responsible.
> A persistent identifier may show the originating agency as well. Whether
> they do or don't, depends on the identifier system used. With URN:NBN
> the namespace specific string (the identifier part of the URN) may be
> semantic, if that is the preference of the organization assigning those
> identifiers. But in the long run it may not be a good idea to include
> the originating agency into the identifier, since organisations (and
> even more so, their domain names) may be more short-lived than the
> things they create. Cool URIs, just like semantic identifiers, may tell
> who originated the resource, but there is a good chance that they do not
> tell who is currently responsible for keeping the resource available. A
> different method for finding this out must be available.
> ARKs, of course, give you both, at least in
>> theory. Is anyone using the "?" feature of ARKs that lets you query
>> that information? Should such info be part of our best practices?
> I don't know if the "?" and "??" features of ARK are in use, and if so,
> by whom. John Kunze may be able to tell that. But I do think that
> providing this functionality in a PID system is a good idea, and will
> "lend" it into the URN system (in case John doesn't mind ;-)). Although
> the practical implementation in the URN system will probably be an
> option of retrieving preservation metadata / rights metadata about the
> Revised version of the URN syntax (RFC2141bis) allows the use of<query>
> and<fragment>.<query> will never be part of the URN, but it could be
> used to carry service-related information. For example, this base URN:
> provides the user the default service (splash page describing the
> resource, and providing a link to the book), but this URN:
> will supply descriptive metadata about the resource in the default
> format, provided that the resolution service knows how to deal with the
> service request in<query> (I2C = URI to resource description).
> In the context of linked data, we might be interested in enabling for
> instance retrieval of the definition of a concept in the chosen language
> (?ENG for English, ?SWE for Swedish, and so on). Whatever linking
> mechanisms are used (PIDs, cool URIs or something else) they should
> enable us to do whatever needs to be done.
> Links are an essential feature in linked data, and we should plan
> carefully the implementation of this functionality - and not take for
> instance the functionality cool URIs are currently providing as the
> predetermined basis for our work.
> All the best,
>>>>> - what should the URI resolve to?
>>> URN-related RFCs are currently being revised (see
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/urnbis/). I am currently writing a new
>>> version of RFC 2483, which specifies the resolution services URN can
>>> provide. In the present RFC 2483 the list of services is fixed. RFC
>>> 2483bis will be based on the idea that IANA should establish a
>>> of informal and formal resolution services. Then URN user communities
>>> could register new services at will (and parameters to these
>>> for instance for requesting descriptive metadata about the resource
>>> different formats).
>>> Existing persistent identifier systems provide a diverse set of
>>> services. With ARK, for instance, it is possible to check the
>>> preservation commitment of the organisation holding a resource. I
>>> know if the PID systems will become more homogeneous in this respect
>>> the future.
>>> Nobody knows what the URIs utilized within this initiative should
>>> resolve to, but I am sure that the mechanism to be built should be
>>> flexible so that it can be adjusted to meet the future needs we don't
>>> foresee yet.
>>> Best regards,
>>>>> That kind of thing.
>>>> Does anyone know an answer to any of these questions? Therefore, I
>>>> think, no URI is better than no URI at all. Use brief and simple and
>>>> easily memorized codes for vocabularies like the terms in 337-338,
>>>> use IDnumbers for names and subjects and titles.
>>>> Any implementation can easily relate them to all sorts of URIs that
>>>> be in current use or follow best practice or resolve to something
>>>> useful for the purpose at hand. Verbal terms need changes and are
>>>> language-bound, URLs are perishable, only codes and numbers are
>>>> easy to handle, and versatile.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net