<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>All,<br><br></div>This is follow-up from a comment by Marcus during the previous review period which I'd like to discuss further to clarify the scope and details.<br><br></div><div>The comments are related to the various identifier attributes in the model.. specifically:<br> + Curation.publisherDID:anyURI = IVOA Identifier format <br> + DataID.creatorDID:anyURI = IVOA Identifier format<br> + DataID.datasetID:anyURI = persistent identifier<br></div><div> ? Publication.refCode:string = doi or bibcode or free text<br></div><div>and<br></div><div> + Publisher.publisherID:anyURI = IVOA Identifier of the publisher (rather than the dataset)<br></div><div><br></div><div>Marcus wrote:<br></div>>(6) <snip><br>> I'd much rather see an Identifier type:<br><div>
><br>> Identifier.kind: (publisher, creator, persistent, ...)<br>
> Identifier.form: (doi, ivoid, generic-uri, ...)<br>
> Identifier.value: (well, you know).<br>
><br>> [kind and form would be open vocabularies with recommended terms defined in the standard).<br><br>>(10) Having said that, I think orcids will become a smash hit in the near future if they aren't one already. Hence, I'd add<br>><br>> identifier<br>><br>> to the Party attributes. The stuff on defining identifiers as in (7)<br>> applies here, too (if we go the URI way, we should say whether we<br>> want orcid:0000-... or <a href="http://orcid.org/0000-..">http://orcid.org/0000-..</a>.)<br><br><br></div><div>I like the idea of having an Identifier Type which makes it easier to migrate flavors of identifiers. I think I would prefer subclassing a base Identifier type, rather than having a 'form' attribute.<br><br></div><div>The 'kind' attribute comes from the suggestion that all the Dataset related Identifiers be assembled to a common list:<br></div><div> Dataset.Identifiers:Identifier[0..*] <br></div><div>which I'm also not in favor of.<br></div><div><br></div><div>So.. lets say we have an Identifier type, with some means of specifying the flavor (ivoaid, doi, bibcode, orcid, generic-uri).<br></div><div>We want to apply this type to:<br></div><div> + Objects (Dataset IDs) == bibcode, doi, ivoaid, generic<br></div><div> + Party-s (Publisher) == ivoaid, orcid, generic<br><br></div><div>Questions:<br></div><div> 1) How do we restrict the flavors which would be allowed for the various attributes?<br></div><div> We don't want to see a 'bibcode' for the Publisher ID <br></div><div> Perhaps 'form' as semanticconcept facilitates this.. allowing the same form under multiple topconcepts?<br></div> <br></div> 2) Associating it with the Party..<br></div> It's not clear to me if the identifier should be associated with the Party, or the Role.<br></div> The same Individual can have multiple Identifiers which serve different roles. I have a Passport and a <br></div> driver's license. In some cases, I can use either ID; but I cannot show the policeman my Passport when <br> I am a driver, or the TSA agent my driver's licence when I'm a traveler.<br></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><br></div><div> So, in some sense, I'd like to see the Role associated with a single Identifier which is appropriate for that role.<br></div><div> However, let's say we have a Contact<br></div><div> Contact extends Role which refers to an Individual<br></div><div><br> If we swap out the Individual playing this role, then the identifier on Role would also need to change.. which <br></div><div> doesn't seem right.<br><br></div><div> 3) Where should this type live?<br></div><div> There was an Identity type in the 'ivoa' base types model which leans in this direction, but is not the same.<br></div><div> Or it could be defined in the Party package.. assuming we incorporate it to some object there.<br></div><div><br><br></div><div>Thoughts?<br></div><div>Mark<br><br></div><div><br><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>