Re: Request to register "identifier" relation type

[Peter Williams <[e-mail]>]

>
> 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 <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> And sticking with the implemented relation name seems better than changing
> it to "cite" or "reference".
>