JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-IDENTIFIERS Archives


DC-IDENTIFIERS Archives

DC-IDENTIFIERS Archives


DC-IDENTIFIERS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-IDENTIFIERS Home

DC-IDENTIFIERS Home

DC-IDENTIFIERS  October 2007

DC-IDENTIFIERS October 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Question of identification.. URN vs. URI

From:

Mikael Nilsson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Identifiers Community <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:11:37 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (171 lines)

tis 2007-10-23 klockan 15:08 +0200 skrev Salokhe, Gauri (KCEW):
> Hi Douglas,
>
> The idea is to register the urn. This way we will be able to use it
> "officially" but from most of the comments received so far it seems that we
> should not even take that path!
>
> Given that we should not define a new URN, we will then stick to the
> dcterms:URI scheme, which will of course result in:
>
> <dc:identifier scheme="dcterms:URI"> http://www.fao.org </dc:identifier>


> <dc:identifier scheme="dcterms:URI"> 550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000
> </dc:identifier>

This is not a valid URI. Did you mean to use the urn:uuid: scheme?

>
> We would like cleaner way of making a distinction between the two than
> checking if one has http or not.

Why?

>
> The idea behind a code like "FAO-ITA-FDNDGRTDNTNS" was to allow those who
> will not use our forms (which will automatically create this code based on
> the filled metadata) to have a possibility to generate the code manually. We
> realize, however, that this is not the optimal way.

Generally, I think you shouldn't rely too much on how identifiers are
constructed, as long as they are unique (and optimally, dereferencable
like http:)

/Mikael

>
> thanks again for the useful feedback.
> gauri
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Identifiers Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Douglas Campbell
> Sent: 19 October 2007 03:29
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Question of identification.. URN vs. URI
>
>
> Hi Gauri,
>
> Just a couple of points about your second question.
>
> You can use "urn:ags:" for internal use, but it's not an official URN (it
> doesn't use an official URN namespace), see:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces
>
> The nice thing about using
> <dc:identifier scheme="dcterms:URI">...
> for both is anyone can process the metadata easily as dcterms:URI is well
> understood, whereas with
> <dc:identifier scheme="ags:URN">
> anyone who wanted to process it would need to work out what an "ags:URN" is.
>
> Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions for the identifier itself - still
> thinking through those issues myself.
>
> One thing I was wondering is how do you work out what someone else's URN
> would be, you'd need to know the exact form of the name they were using to
> form the URN code from. Would be a case of looking it up in the registry
> (and hoping they had already defined it)?
>
> Thanx,
> Douglas
>
> >>> "Salokhe, Gauri (KCEW)" <[log in to unmask]> 19/10/07 04:44:43
> >>> >>>
> Hi,
>
> I thought I might start of the discussion (not sure how many people re on
> this list) with a question on Identifiers
>
> We are currently trying to define a schema to describe organizations. The
> architecture is distributed [1] and we would like to thus have a unique
> identifier for each organization. In this architecture the data describing an
> organization are stored in a file as an XML description based on a specific
> application profile, and access to these distributed files is facilitated by
> a central registry file. Theoretically, the Registry File could just consist
> of a list of URLs, with no need for unique identifiers, since the URLs,
> though not permanent, are unique. Using this approach, the dc:identifier
> element would be used for the URL of the website and only the URLs of the
> descriptions would be stored in the Registry file.
>
> However, assigning a unique identifier to an organization allows us to:
> * change the URL of the record without creating a second entry in the
> registry file;
> * (to a certain extent) avoid duplication;
> * performing faster harvesting;
> * most important of all, create and maintain relations between the records
> (impossible with URLs since they can change).
>
> Since it was decided to implement relations between the organizations (and
> their parts: divisions, departments, branches etc.), the dc:relation element
> was included with nested DCTERMS elements for describing different types of
> relations with other records (organizations). Using this approach, one of the
> elements of the metadata set had to contain a unique and permanent -
> therefore location-independent - identifier. The unique number is generated
> by taking the acronym, location of the organization, combined with 12
> consonants taken from the name of the organization (six from each side). The
> last "action" is done to disambiguate between, for example,
>
> University of Agriculture Athens
>
> University of Agriculture Faisalabad
>
> Given all this, we would generate a sample URN as follows:
>
> Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
> FAO
> Rome, Italy
>
> would be: urn:ags:org:FAO-ITA-FDNDGRTDNTNS
>
> Now, we I have here two questions:
>
> 1) Is there a more simple way of generating a unique identifier given the
> "distributed" architecture (plus lack of URLs on part of some organizations)?
>
> and
>
> 2) can we use
>
> <dc:identifier scheme="AGS:URN">
> urn:ags:org:FAO-ITA-FDNDGRTDNTNS</dc:identifier>
> <dc:identifier scheme="DCTERMS:URI"> http://www.fao.org/ </dc:identifier>
>
> where AGS refers to the "Agricultural Metadata Element Set" namespace
> http://www.fao.org/aims/intro_meta.jsp
>
> We discovered that the guidelines at [2] it is not even necessary to specify
> a different scheme: URI should be good both for URLs and URNs, and then the
> first letters of the id (urn: or http:) should identify the protocol or
> scheme or whatever. But this would be more difficult to parse in XML than
> specifying a different scheme.
>
> Thanks in advance for your time!
> Gauri
>
> [1] A Distributed Architecture for Harvesting Metadata Describing
> Organizations in the Agriculture Sector
> ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai157e/ai157e00.pdf
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/
> This e-mail is intended for the addressee only and may contain information
> which is subject to legal privilege. The contents are not necessarily the
> official view or communication of the National Library of New Zealand. If you
> are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute
> this e-mail or any information in, or attached to it. If you have received
> this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately or return the
> original message to the National Library by e-mail, and destroy any copies.
> The National Library does not accept any liability for changes made to this
> e-mail or attachments after sending.
>
>
>
> All e-mails have been scanned for viruses and content by security software.
> The National Library reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications
> through its network.
>
--
<[log in to unmask]>

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
April 2010
September 2009
June 2009
February 2009
December 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
October 2007


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager