LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  May 2009

CODE4LIB May 2009

Subject:

Re: One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to Rule Them All

From:

Jakob Voss <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 11 May 2009 12:31:52 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (94 lines)

Hi,

I summarized my thoughts about identifiers for data formats in a blog 
posting: http://jakoblog.de/2009/05/10/who-identifies-the-identifiers/

In short it’s not a technology issue but a commitment issue and the 
problem of identifying the right identifiers for data formats can be 
reduced to two fundamental rules of thumb:

1. reuse: don’t create new identifiers for things that already have one.

2. document: if you have to create an identifier describe its referent 
as open, clear, and detailled as possible to make it reusable.

A format should be described with a schema (XML Schema, OWL etc.) or at 
least a standard. Mostly this schema already has a namespace or similar 
identifier that can be used for the whole format.

For instance MODS Version 3 (currently 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4) has the XML 
Namespace http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 so this is the best identifier to 
identify MODS. If you need to identify a specific version then you 
should *first* look if such identifiers already exist, *second* push the 
publisher (LOC) to assign official URIs for MODS versions, if this do 
not already exist, or *third* create and document specific URIs and make 
that everyone knows about this identifiers. At the moment there are:

MODS Version 3     http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3
MODS Version 3.0   info:srw/schema/1/mods-v3.0
MODS Version 3.1   info:srw/schema/1/mods-v3.1
MODS Version 3.2   info:srw/schema/1/mods-v3.2
                    info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:mods
MODS Version 3.3   info:srw/schema/1/mods-v3.3

The SRU Schemas registry links the "info:srw/schema/1/mods-v3*" 
identifiers to its XML Schemas which is very little documentation but it 
links to http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 at least in some way.

Ross wrote:

> First, and most importantly, how do we reconcile these different
> identifiers for the same thing?  Can we come up with some agreement on
> which ones we should really use?

Use the one that is documented best.

> Secondly, and this gets to the reason why any of this was brought up
> in the first place, how can we coordinate these identifiers more
> effectively and efficiently to reuse among various specs and
> protocols, but not:
 >
> 1) be tied to a particular community
> 2) require some laborious and lengthy submission and review process to
> just say "hey, here's my FOAF available via UnAPI"

The identifier for FOAF is http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/. Forget about 
identifiers that are not URIs. OAI-PMH at least includes a mechanism to 
map metadataPrefixes to official URIs but this mechanism is not always 
used. If unAPI lacks a way to map a local name to a global URI, we 
should better fix unAPI to tell us:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<formats xmlns="http://unapi.info/">
   <format name="foaf" uri="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"/>
</formats>

unAPI should be revised and specified bore strictly to become an RFC 
anyway. Yes, this requires a laborious and lengthy submission and review 
process but there is no such thing as a free lunch.

> 3) be so lax that it throws all hope of authority out the window

Reuse existing authorities and document better to create authority.

> I would expect the various communities to still maintain their own
> registries of "approved" data formats (well, OpenURL and SRU, anyway
> -- it's not as appropriate to UnAPI or Jangle).

There should be a distinction between descriptive registries that only 
list identifiers and formats that are defined elsewhere and 
authoritative registries that define new identifiers and formats. The 
number of authoritatively defined identifiers should be small for a 
given API because the identifier should better be defined by the creator 
of the format instead by a user of the format. If the creator does not 
support usable identifiers then better talk to him instead of creating 
something in parallel.

Greetings,
Jakob

-- 
Jakob Voß <[log in to unmask]>, skype: nichtich
Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network
Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
+49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager