Resource Identifiers: discussion synthesis

[Robert Hanisch]

Ray, Tony, et al. -- I guess closure is being reached here, though it still
is a bit hard to tell.  I would like to try to finish up v0.8 of RSM, but
cannot really do this until we have enough of an agreement on identifiers so
that RSM is, if not complete in its specification, at least not wrong.

We currently have three identifiers in RSM:

    Identifier (of the resource)
    PublisherID
    ServiceStandardID

All are currently described as URIs.  URIs are typically based on an
organization's IP domain, a string that is guaranteed to be unique as a
result of going through the IP domain registration process.  So, isn't this
good enough to start with?  I think concerns about people registering
resources with non-unique identifiers are a bit spurious; I mean, why would
anyone do this?  The point of an identifier is to help locate the resource.
Using the URI for some other resource or organization would have no benefit.
People could be malicious, I suppose, but to what gain?  It would seem that
DOS attacks on the VO would hardly be worthwhile.

At this point it is less important to me whether we stick with a URI or use
an arbitrary string provided by an indentifier-issuing service.  I prefer
the URI and I prefer leaving the choice of the identifiers with the data
provider.  We can add an indentifier validator (are my chosen indentifiers
unique?) or something as time permits.

I suppose I can modify RSM to read simply "Identifier: A unique label
associated with the resource" with similar wording for PublisherID and
ServiceStandardID, and refer to the TDB Identifier Specification document.

As my 11-year old is fond of saying, "whatever."  We need to move ahead with
some agreement, even if it is an interim one, and in any case, I hope it is
a simple one.

Cheers,
Bob