Re: Request to register "identifier" relation type

Peter Williams <pezra@barelyenough.org> Wed, 09 August 2017 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <pezra@barelyenough.org>
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 E94BC132379 for <link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=barelyenough-org.20150623.gappssmtp.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 rOUflrdx70LO for <link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x235.google.com (mail-oi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) (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 04229132051 for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id e124so72962111oig.2 for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 13:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=barelyenough-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tm7dZKwP0T+xnJk0zbu1ANimc4m5peteMBywDBYxJN4=; b=Qg43yzWHUIfHC1IS9oTb60/a8OU3yTJYcUMwqixjQK0WrwgpQdt3lYyZxoPCXilQeN eUq66SgIjDGxcxQwNv45t1tJvcO+rNBSU8S+fIQ4vA4HlbvXp5dvoSCL3U//sx3R5bkE oszSFzEHWxQHf/ZTPSCLGz88ny/v9WQ6I2RYqoLADaKw0vVLChUWuijFF/rWgDN4qK9F Ct7r8W4KYu7qhgo+iDRXia0TlvpVGV0ucdKLmhHR5r8hIQLh8mTWHqs3dS+E8faJLihZ ILe95JW7LIzDEFU/Z1VdtC6FE7AT3jX3Axw0za5rF7xVYzfq675WSshJxXRm5YuzEZYu GVWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tm7dZKwP0T+xnJk0zbu1ANimc4m5peteMBywDBYxJN4=; b=Gq9qsxdHIqHTKFwMi8iTk0eSlONcJ1iEKZwYDZ/GrBBqBCyznJcOi1wCgixtQOK2Mx DsBdkQEcjjigwLvT/TwME9C0ob2/ED0VR/jWwpLPNNc6HgrgJlotN49s/gn+CB2tDhJS 4NSXgAAZblt/VEq61wiR1VePplTlkI262FeHSmtGILmSy8n5fFGMVu/VacNlb4PuEO61 Lu8xOD6+AZyE6lt51atfKqI3J2gg34aco3HaTk0hG0zUc2xiLCbuYArfIvlBqGAPrXxu 5L2GuEibouk6CBYU+dSkR3sQcI3XUUmzRHSNdUFGkh1OMhRw4QUZCO75JcaK87PtHp1C Ulsg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5gIxCyeEah2wZeX7jZ57ejljbVZPlUBkiZiFKIXF5MRC4bjAMaH kPunpwzYTV8OkAurG9/eNEKndvXBXbyZ
X-Received: by 10.202.225.67 with SMTP id y64mr10566260oig.159.1502311658387; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 13:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.0.79 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOKKrgOGJ9MpwUgJ3bAmtGKhYTQ_J35OEJTpcLRG_tNfGaP3PA@mail.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>
From: Peter Williams <pezra@barelyenough.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:47:37 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK5VdzxY7Li8eXe4JiHdQCiHjGLjCHu7oHNgRK-yMJ2PGjx52w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Request to register "identifier" relation type
To: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>
Cc: "John A. Kunze" <jak@ucop.edu>, Simeon Warner <simeon.warner@cornell.edu>, Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>, Michael Nelson <mln@cs.odu.edu>, Geoffrey Bilder <gbilder@crossref.org>, link-relations <link-relations@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d4d6ebd92f30556583092"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/link-relations/_ayiNUwqS9Q9N4IIx99hnRnND5s>
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 20:47:41 -0000

>
> 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".
>