What about an option 2bis?
You use the main URI http://data.europeana.eu/agent/12345 which is
always searching for "agent 12345". But you also add a readable name
The system always returns the "agent 12345" but the human can read the
name in the URI.
It also means that you can use any name you want with the code: the real
name or a really bad name that has nothing to do with it (I won't give
So those would end up at the same place:
Nothing matters but the code (12345), the rest is just to make it
"pretty" and human readable.
About the same system as Henk said about VIAF.
So I won't vote for 1 or 2...
On 24/03/15 16:20, Henk Vanstappen wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
> I take the same vote as Lizzy for the same reasons.
> As a compromise, you could follow the approach of VIAF, where Bach has a numerical identifier (http://viaf.org/viaf/12304462/), but is presented also as http://viaf.org/viaf/12304462/#Bach,_Johann_Sebastian,_1685-1750.
> And eventually it might be a good idea to refer to the VIAF uri too, of course.
> best wishes,
> Henk Vanstappen
> [log in to unmask]
> On 24 Mar 2015, at 15:45, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 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
>> 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!
>>  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JvjrWMTpMIH7WnuieNqcT0zpJAXUPo6x4uMBj1pEx0Y/
>>  http://invis.io/RU2G1HUBG