Re: Request to register "identifier" relation type

Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com> Wed, 09 August 2017 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <hvdsomp@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8C5132380 for <link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id spK88S0f4xmu for <link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com (mail-wm0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A583313239B for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id k20so17015232wmg.0 for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=eBPbwUrFZ+GnbQZ/tMGHOI2TeybpNnBvsqB4fOTeeQI=; b=TOrfkVrCBOKFZ0o6tgFZ8UVttXhLd2zdZrk/UisMtbUJJn0GOsvUkQFvM+d9TLML1j OqHKvmYBea/2HOBDVVp/bA1+CqxzDr3ehJdQ46j5dVye8g41d7MWSsRJDYBORgt3mvug iYKhOY20RLkrZmHO+EXMl4eaMSFowpXT5NPtCH/oMm+rmWIsFWDD/Xgoa89Qw4Df1rPh U0YzJUtraYIRdy6qZtLX/dpvN7big/YfJGNKUA5N/TZUByx2hZ8UZF3DqspKJar0k2VQ QTUyYunT2djJ7ixLcTxnfVuPjVvOnUvkWjpKtAN3WrHeMgRd8/6bQrYTC1wYbEtlPDEE c/lA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=eBPbwUrFZ+GnbQZ/tMGHOI2TeybpNnBvsqB4fOTeeQI=; b=OtwjGXtne3T06L+/UENG4cw+w21dy5Q9UBh6etId72zQVF5DEXS25cjoKCooHIqYnW PEuCVSjuiKeiyOFI3mJwMZSE7nyVgwOGolp8EJFleH11b7dgbQ3ZrOEg3PBUpTdQShCZ jG7lRKQe0gJ6QmaciCRHXbsf/kKBQhk4xGVVE03z77mO3o9xxLoZ4xaP7i1+brpa0r2X E0hzMsTMmXBRde7moB6qVVRJxsvwyQkxEZA8wSO0rCfH0L6T9P0uMfVPge1foDLIvM/0 5AiKPV+T9FlT+0GW7te8+HNJJFBxou0X+T67E1NgU75nL/HCCysaohJ6r7ai29pioTJK EinQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5j7R2+4qZzJa/t0d0jcr1ikjIirAcEZoqKbJZo7AsCFTTYnuKL1 BmsdZ9i2LDlC0PQbVCE=
X-Received: by 10.80.148.211 with SMTP id t19mr9405876eda.128.1502318432830; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.6] ([77.172.247.152]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n12sm2566285edd.4.2017.08.09.15.40.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-784EB572-4C30-4839-88DA-986A1991991E
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Request to register "identifier" relation type
From: Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (14E304)
In-Reply-To: <CAK5VdzxY7Li8eXe4JiHdQCiHjGLjCHu7oHNgRK-yMJ2PGjx52w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:40:31 +0200
Cc: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>, "John A. Kunze" <jak@ucop.edu>, Simeon Warner <simeon.warner@cornell.edu>, Michael Nelson <mln@cs.odu.edu>, Geoffrey Bilder <gbilder@crossref.org>, Peter Williams <pezra@barelyenough.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <DF7C47EF-72C6-4027-B192-D5684FF05E4E@gmail.com>
References: <CAOywMHeHcwP5h4vzbTY+q00AEYn85F0E+LKqnx0aWpK1kcA1AA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK5Vdzz8=+6pfEDA2gGvtYU8kNx4pPKmsme71szP-JrvhpoTdw@mail.gmail.com> <54CA5E71-F469-4FD9-AF29-21985B454CAE@gmail.com> <DEE2ABBF-1146-4E17-875F-3F5EFFB540FB@pobox.com> <D933EB1A-CB2F-4BD3-9747-C03A0D78CACC@gmail.com> <CAOywMHf5JqQoFXLOi5cuD+HWTxMKu-JcjL_Zp0NWM7wqmBqSbQ@mail.gmail.com> <32B88620-D166-4078-8721-8EFCB818E1FE@pobox.com> <CAK5VdzzpV6kdn-DFt-mBWeGZyL27xDPEZ+=dAd7qnO+O+-MqEA@mail.gmail.com> <775EE8C8-306E-4617-8333-5A5F3B69B59B@gmail.com> <CAK5VdzwJFcDQiwwNmDTPAwwK65nzP56criFz39dMenEqBjQ4-w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOKKrgMZ26Uf-S8J1hOiXPeh3H3stD3eB3fxMZ6jWfBrm=W1Vg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOKKrgPnadsyu0SyUcgxPFd1A9FAwfpQ6wv0W+XCXzokhg1pGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOKKrgOGJ9MpwUgJ3bAmtGKhYTQ_J35OEJTpcLRG_tNfGaP3PA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK5VdzxY7Li8eXe4JiHdQCiHjGLjCHu7oHNgRK-yMJ2PGjx52w@mail.gmail.com>
To: link-relations <link-relations@ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/link-relations/0j4JR8ppplhWScimqyYG7TKJKEA>
X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <link-relations.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/link-relations>, <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/link-relations/>
List-Post: <mailto:link-relations@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations>, <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 22:40:37 -0000

FYI, some implementers seem to be rather OK with "identifier":

https://wiki.duraspace.org/plugins/servlet/mobile?contentId=87468598#content/view/87468598

Greetings

Herbert

On Aug 9, 2017, at 22:47, Peter Williams <pezra@barelyenough.org>; wrote:

>> sticking with the implemented relation name seems better than changing it to "cite" or "reference".
>  
> `identifier` would, if its use became common, almost certainly damage the usefulness of `canonical`, `self` and `bookmark` all of which *identify* the context of the link for some purpose. Most people aren't going to read the I-D. Most won't even look at the IANA link relations registry. Most will see an `identifier` link some place or skim a blog post and then start using it where ever the name seems to make sense. The usage cluster of `identifier` will be large, diffuse and will overlap the usage clusters of those other relations. The end result will be a less useful web.
> 
> The semantics described in the I-D are distinct from existing relations but the name, `identifier`, fails to evoke those distinctions. `citable` or `cite-as` would be much more likely to result in targets of these links being the resource that should be referenced when citing the context of the link. I support a relation (or relations) for the use cases identified by the I-D but not at the expense of several existing relations with proven usefulness.
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>; wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> And sticking with the implemented relation name seems better than changing it to "cite" or "reference". 
>