as the difference is minimal, it looks for me quite natural to ask:
Why don't you support both?
The second option has the advantage to give the human user a clue about what is hidden behind the url (this might spare a lot of time for developers)...
However, this depends of how to you use this id/URL in the APIs...
1. if you use it often only in form or referencing URL, that it is better to use the second format
2. If you use it as part of the preview, or full representation of the entity in 90% of the cases, that the name in the url becomes redundant:
e.g. if you have everywhere a representation like in the following example, the representation of the "key_en" attribute in the uri is redundant...
key_en "johann_sebastian_bach"; //similar to freebase key:en ... see http://rdf.freebase.com/m/03_f0
label@fr: "Jean-Sébastien Bach"
So .. I think it is important to take in account what the users need and minimize API calls , when making this decision.
From: Discussion list for Europeana Technical Developments [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
Sent: Dienstag, 24. März 2015 15:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Your advice on minting URIs for contextual entities
We're about to mint identifiers (URIs) for contextual entities to be used in Europeana. This will concern concepts, agents or places to be used for enrichment  and a couple of other things. The data will be adapted from external or providers' datasets, and will eventually have to be available as linked data on data.europeana.eu.
After internal discussions, we have to choose between two options:
1. A bare numerical identifier, as in
2. A number combined with a human-readable label, as in http://data.europeana.eu/agent/12345_johannes_sebastian_bach
In any case URIs would lead to machine-readable data for software clients, while humans would be directed to pages like . But human-readable labels in identifiers would help to identify and discuss the resources more easily. So option 2 is very tempting.
However, option 2 is slightly harder to implement. Also, we would have to choose one field in the data, and one language (as we do for other communication, including this mail). Both field and language could change from one source to the other, when we merge different datasets.
We're curious to hear whether you have a preference! We have created a small poll:
Note that it is not a a majority vote. We may end up not have the resource to implement the more complex option. Also, one could have a killer argument for one option, that defeats all other considerations :-). You can leave comments at the bottom of the poll page.
Thanks a lot for the advice!