Print

Print


Dear colleagues

I think that from a technical point of view it is clear that Option 1 is the good one.

But not all the people in Europeana is so technical. We are  now a Network of 3,000 members (ha, ha) and we must capture the interest of everybody.

I do agree that every CHO in Europeana must have an URI to identify  it. But the stakeholders must understand what it is all  about. The VIAF example it is very clear.

Xavier Agenjo Bullón
Director de Proyectos
Fundación Ignacio Larramendi
Alenza, 4, 5º
28003 Madrid
Telf.: (34) 91 432 10 42
Fax.: (34) 91 432 11 13
[log in to unmask]
www.larramendi.es

Certificado ISO 9001.
P No imprimir si no es necesario. Protejamos el Medio Ambiente

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Discussion list for Europeana Technical Developments [mailto:[log in to unmask]] En nombre de Antoine Isaac
Enviado el: miércoles, 25 de marzo de 2015 17:24
Para: [log in to unmask]
Asunto: Re: Your advice on minting URIs for contextual entities

Thanks for the extra feedback!
Btw I forgot to mention in my email the point Andy Powell made on the poll:
[
Note that section 2.3.1 of the Architecture of the WWW http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases suggests that [minting both forms of URL] is not good practice because of the additional load it places on consumers of the linked data.
]

Antoine

On 3/25/15 5:09 PM, Victor de Boer @ VU wrote:
> Hi Antoine, all
>
> I second Nuno's reservations about using more than one identifier. In
> that case you would depend on the specific configurations of a
> specific web server to infer that two identifiers are the same. That
> is not necessarily sustainable in my opinion.
>
>  From a technical perspective, option 1 or 2 make no difference, so its
> a social engineering thing. If you want to avoid human confusion in
> the case of changing names, option 1 is safer.
>
> best
> Victor
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Nuno Freire <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Balancing all the arguments is hard, but I'm in favour of supporting
>> option 1.
>>
>> I may also add a few arguments against supporting more than one identifier:
>> - You'll need a slightly more complex data publication system, and
>> additional data to handle (sameAs triples)
>> - Externals developers, data analysts and robots may not realize when
>> they have two different URIs refering to the same entity. In a big data
>> world, sometimes short-cuts are necessary and analysis of sameAs
>> triples, or dereferencing, may not be done.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Nuno
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24/03/2015 15:54, Gordea Sergiu wrote:
>>> Dear Antoine,
>>>
>>> http://data.europeana.eu/agent/12345
>>> http://data.europeana.eu/agent/12345_johannes_sebastian_bach
>>>
>>> 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...
>>> entity: {
>>> httpUri: http://data.europeana.eu/agent/12345
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> BR,
>>>
>>> Sergiu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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/1JvjrWMTpMIH7WnuieNqcT0zpJAXUPo6x4uMBj1pEx0Y/
>>> [2] http://invis.io/RU2G1HUBG
>>>