Re: [office-metadata] Consistent Identification?

[Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

On Sep 13, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:

> No, IRIs facilitate integration with RDF based solutions and not 
> "network-based solutions."

Not true. IRIs are used in non-RDF contexts for identification too.

> Imagine for a moment that we have one of Gary's real estate 
> transaction systems, none of which use IRIs for any purpose 
> whatsoever. Within the interchange of those documents, the parties 
> have identified metadata that is meaningful to them and have agreed 
> protocols for its processing. There seems to me to be no reason to 
> require that they use IRIs for "globally unique identification." Their 
> current systems of identification suit their present purposes and 
> forcing them to adopt a new system of identification simply imposes a 
> barrier to adoption of ODF for their systems.

They need not throw out their identifiers; merely make them IRIs.

They have a local id scheme with an example like "232434343". They can 
do "tag:xxx:232434343".

I'm not saying they need to be HTTP addresses. See below too ...

> Nor does such a requirement "ensure interoperability."

With a HUGE identification infrastructure; absolutely!

> Recall that we have specifically discussed that ODF applications must 
> preserve metadata that they do not understand. Can we really say that 
> an ODF application that does not understand some portion of metadata 
> is really interoperable with an ODF application that does?

At a minimal level (say display); yes, we can.

[...]

> Given that the variety of metadata that may be applied to ODF 
> documents is unknown and probably unknowable, we are not competent to 
> specify at this point the semantics and processing of that metadata.

I just firmly disagree, and think there's plenty of evidence to the 
contrary.

> I would include in the processing of metadata the identification that 
> here is suggested should be done by IRIs. If we are not competent to 
> specify enough processing to make all metadata meaningful as defined 
> by the ODF specification, I see no need to specify how such metadata 
> should be addressed.

I'd put it differently, though I think we're probably on the same page 
here.

Either you identify something formally (to the system, so that it is 
addressable) or you do not. If you identify, then use an IRI.

That leaves us room to discuss local/relative IRIs. So my above example 
could just use the id as a local id (without the prefix stuff). They 
wouldn't have to change their ID at all.

> *NOTE* that is not to say that for metadata we do define we should not 
> be able to specify that it must use IRIs, for example, because we are 
> defining the metadata and to me that includes identifying how it will 
> be identified. But that is solely for metadata that we define, not 
> metadata that is defined by others.

Then we preclude possibility for interoperability except within the 
formally approved metadata. I'd consider that unacceptable.

> We don't lose anything by allowing users in particular communities to 
> identify their own metadata and avoid forcing people to adopt new 
> identification systems for their metadata.

OK, but let's just keep in mind there are different ways to use IRIs 
here, and that we can do it in ways where we give users/developers 
plenty of flexibility, but within a standard infrastructure.

...

> If we all use different IRIs for identification of some subject we are 
> simply back where we started except now we have one more 
> identification system, IRIs, that has to be integrated with all the 
> existing ones and new ones that are being invented all the time.

Not really a problem in the grand scheme of things.

Or rather, it's not our problem, but a much larger social problem.

If we do not agree on even HOW we identify things -- I'm talking about 
the syntax of an identifier -- then we have a mess on our hands.

Likewise, we don't need to worry about whether different communities 
use different IRIs to refer to the same thing. I'm sure that will 
happen, in fact.

But what we are saying with this requirement nothing more than that: 
"you shall use this syntax to formally identify objects." How they use 
that syntax is totally up to them.

Does that sound reasonable?

Bruce