Return-Path: 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 57CD613251F for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 09:53:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 UlAt9XW_Z8u1 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 09:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt0-x236.google.com (mail-qt0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::236]) (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 8241B132515 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 09:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x236.google.com with SMTP id p3so6057531qtg.2 for ; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 09:53:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NkdZtLcwHp4cNiYAzUVWynzss2NIQY6eSigPfOIYyx4=; b=Dhl7aZ/l8SuV4EwPsiqX3yOJwivQAp1H2zopT2Kk2RmUsng4OpU1PDghLPt7gCwB0T qGPzfISL3YK4hzMP1jTI7vBISz0+WeVsduqpKOjI7KPDGSCRkEi8KzoZOTC/g0xrdDQb 6DTIH7cmFgX9EjgzNKxUTpiqXLo29Mj4G2VGAmwk/XkD7p6aYHjIUdZXxqol8qUrzvLm PQ79g/uKSFUDxaIzY1XzcyXp+VYnXDXmzqYkKKg/A4sTBWw1IIdshPAolS6m+8uKVzCN ahq+m4AjxSbnqe3KQWbTOieJ+KlqdHukC3l42Bk0zPTVvQOhUaoXOZL9SLsstkdvKzaL pd8w== 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=NkdZtLcwHp4cNiYAzUVWynzss2NIQY6eSigPfOIYyx4=; b=HUCvPcRUeMO9H/UoXPcQx6ujFSaD8d/+1g9UAT+gpnlfKNAzPx5inqqcKYMemSNZIf k6Y+iestRBVc5J8HBErXbGg5ldpO6O7NNtumR9gz/Y2GvyHp/queEyLpzbC7eb2oritp Blf/wLlBE5TL1gjnofAQEv3Vk4rae7zx67hdPIgyLCLB0Kx4yyCAY0Ffh81Y6x0d8chg TB8NwbcGPuZ/DALEHxVqhudlUQiV17L1sf57GgtWSR8RZvJoVtT73mxJTdOxJ7+ras+t ZGLs2lEuEd0o7BOSo0bcoa/duR82Es9JGT17xV9Z0bN1RDuIJwH6g2Camd4yGMQ0Z1yG /IJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jlLmntp7qZiVBahyCEWJ+KkSuzi0v9TuQrrsS3D5BEvDwu8OrT MwB6mqRqAQ8Gj9MB8ti97W5xuJcuZA== X-Received: by 10.200.42.35 with SMTP id k32mr1858059qtk.136.1502124820626; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 09:53:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.33.197 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 09:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.33.197 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 09:53:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Bjartur Thorlacius Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 16:53:39 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Request to register "identifier" relation type To: Michael Nelson Cc: Simeon Warner , "John A. Kunze" , Peter Williams , link-relations , Geoffrey Bilder Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f42c65780a505562cb014" Archived-At: X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 16:53:43 -0000 --001a113f42c65780a505562cb014 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" The short version (as per Ed's separate email) is that "canonical" exists to resolve URI aliases: 2 or more URIs for the same resource (i.e., duplicate content). [...] In contrast, "identifier" is about establishing relationships between *different* resources. This includes providing machine-readable linkage between: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171057 and http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167475 but also between the DOI and the subsequents PDFs, PPTs, PNGs, XML, etc.: If you discovered one of the three above URIs out of context, it would be nice if they expressed membership in "10.1371/journal.pone.0171057". That wouldn't preclude additional boundary expressions, but the XML citations and PNG of an article image clearly can't use "canonical". If the content is different parts of a paper, then the subpages should , should they not? The DOI is the canonical IRI. There may be a couple of alternate representations of the whole paper (HTML, PDF, and paper). Then there are parts with their own IRIs (images, tables, even chapters). The parts should link up to the DOI (explicitly using rel=up). To me, rel=identifier sounds like a hypernym of alternate and up specifically intended for pointing to the nearest DOI. If it's only intended for DOIs, why not just call it rel=doi? In non-DOI instances the distinction between alternate and up seems important. To be fair, RSS and Atom go so far as using alternate where index would be more appropriate. So specifying the desired semantics explicitly, under a new rel, and then moving to existing ones seems like a more forwards-compatible strategy. Regards, Bjartur Thorlacius --001a113f42c65780a505562cb014 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The short version (as per Ed's separate email) is that "canonical&= quot; exists to resolve URI aliases: 2 or more URIs for the same resource (= i.e., duplicate content). =C2=A0[...]
In contrast, "identifier" is about establishing relationships bet= ween *different* resources.=C2=A0 This includes providing machine-readable = linkage between:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171057
and

http://journals.plos.org/p= losone/article?id=3D10.1371/journal.pone.0167475

but also between the DOI and the subsequents PDFs, PPTs, PNGs, XML, etc.:

If you discovered one of the three above URIs out of context, it would be n= ice if they expressed membership in "10.1371/journal.pone.0171057"= ;.=C2=A0 That wouldn't preclude additional boundary expressions, b= ut the XML citations and PNG of an article image clearly can't use &quo= t;canonical".
If the con= tent is different parts of a paper, then the subpages should <link rel= =3Dup hef=3D"/to/the/paper" >, should they not?=C2=A0

The DOI is the canonical IRI. Th= ere may be a couple of alternate representations of the whole paper (HTML, = PDF, =C2=A0and paper). Then there are parts with their own IRIs (images, ta= bles, even chapters). The parts should link up to the DOI (explicitly using= rel=3Dup).

To me, rel= =3Didentifier sounds like a hypernym of alternate and up specifically inten= ded for pointing to the nearest DOI. If it's only intended for DOIs, wh= y not just call it rel=3Ddoi? In non-DOI instances the distinction between = alternate and up seems important.=C2=A0

To be fair, RSS and Atom go so far as using alternate where= index would be more appropriate. So specifying the desired semantics expli= citly, under a new rel, and then moving to existing ones seems like a more = forwards-compatible strategy.

Regards,=C2=A0
Bjartur Thorlacius
--001a113f42c65780a505562cb014--