Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

[Michael Tuexen <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 17, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Steve Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'm in agreement.
> 
> We have not had any standards so far regarding maintenance of the validity of contact information.  For example, my contact information for the April 1, 1995 RFC 1776 is:
> 
>> Steve Crocker
>>   CyberCash, Inc.
>>   2086 Hunters Crest Way
>>   Vienna, VA 22181
>> 
>>   Phone: [phone]
>>   EMail: [e-mail]
>> 
> The email address, phone number and postal address became stale a long time ago.  If ORCID is
I was always wondering the authors can't get an @ietf.org address, which is listed
in the RFC and is used to forward e-mail to another account.

Best regards
Michael
> introduced, it's likely to be at least as good as email addresses, etc.  Let's avoid or at least defer trying to endow them with additional properties such as permanence until there is some experience.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 17, 2013, at 12:16 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> --On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:20 -0400 Michael Richardson
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I did not know about ORCID before this thread.
>>> I think it is brilliant, and what I've read about the mandate
>>> of orcid.org, and how it is managed, I am enthusiastic.
>>> 
>>> I agree with what Joel wrote:
>>> 
>>> Asking for ORCID support in the tool set and asking for IETF
>>> endorsement are two very different things.
>>> 
>>> Having tool support for it is a necessary first step to
>>> permitting IETF contributors to gain experience with it.   We
>>> need that experience before we can talk about consensus.
>>> 
>>> So, permit ORCID, but not enforce.
>> 
>> The more I think about it, the more I think that Andy or someone
>> else who understands ORCIDs and the relevant organizations,
>> etc., should be working on a URN embedding of the things.  Since
>> we already have provisions for URIs in contact information, an
>> ORCID namespace would permit the above without additional
>> tooling or special RFC Editor decision making.  It would also
>> avoid entanglement with and controversies about the rather long
>> RFC Editor [re]tooling queue.
>> 
>> Doing the write-up would require a bit of effort but, in
>> principle,
>>   URN:ORICD:....
>> is pretty close to trivially obvious.
>> 
>> Comments about dogfood-eating and not inventing new mechanisms
>> when we have existing ones might be inserted by reference here.
>> 
>>> An interesting second (or third) conversation might be about
>>> how I could insert ORCIDs into the meta-data for already
>>> published documents. 
>> 
>> With a URN embedding that question would turn into the much more
>> general one about how URIs in contact metadata could be
>> retroactively inserted and updated. In some ways, that is
>> actually an easier question.
>> 
>> best,
>>  john
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>