Re: Request to register "identifier" relation type

Herbert Van de Sompel <> Wed, 09 August 2017 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8C5132380 for <>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id spK88S0f4xmu for <>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A583313239B for <>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k20so17015232wmg.0 for <>; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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 with SMTP id t19mr9405876eda.128.1502318432830; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id n12sm2566285edd.4.2017. (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 <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (14E304)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:40:31 +0200
Cc: Bjartur Thorlacius <>, "John A. Kunze" <>, Simeon Warner <>, Michael Nelson <>, Geoffrey Bilder <>, Peter Williams <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: link-relations <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 22:40:37 -0000

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



On Aug 9, 2017, at 22:47, Peter Williams <> 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 <> wrote:
>> And sticking with the implemented relation name seems better than changing it to "cite" or "reference".