Print

Print


Dear all,

I am in favor os supporting both, in the same way it is implemented below,
or in a slightly variation (using '?' instead of '/' or '_'), like
http://data.europeana.eu/agent/12345 or
http://data.europeana.eu/agent/12345?johannes_sebastian_bach
where the part after the number is actually optional, but present most of the time.

Sarantos

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:54:24PM +0100, Rodolphe Bailly wrote:
> Dear Antoine,
> 
> We do both. 
> The URI is 
> http://data.europeana.eu/agent/12345 
> We also generate and disseminate
> http://data.europeana.eu/agent/12345/johannes_sebastian_bach
> but the web server doesn't take into account what is behind the last "/".
> This way, Bach can decide to change his name is the future, he'll still have
> the same URI.
> 
> R.
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Antoine Isaac [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Envoyι : mardi 24 mars 2015 15:45
> ΐ : [log in to unmask]
> Objet : Your advice on minting URIs for contextual entities
> 
> 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 [1] 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
> http://data.europeana.eu/agent/12345
> 
> 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 [2]. 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:
> http://doodle.com/sdpftvqq6e3shw4v
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Antoine
> 
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JvjrWMTpMIH7WnuieNqcT0zpJAXUPo6x4uMBj1pE
> x0Y/
> [2] http://invis.io/RU2G1HUBG