Interagency Data Stewardship/Identifiers/Table

From Federation of Earth Science Information Partners
Jump to: navigation, search
' ' Identification scheme ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Axes Criterion DOI LSID OID PURL ARK UUID XRI Handles URI/URN/URL
Technical Value 1. Is it recommended by any standards bodies? If so, which ones? ANSI/NISO; under consideration by ISO I3C and OMG Basic ISO and ITU stds OCLC No ISO/IEC and IETF IETF; US military IETF
2. Are there any security issues with it? no more than any other web address no more than any other URN scheme not as part of schema itself First version yes, fixed since then No those of any web address
3. How scalable is it to very large numbers of objects? Very Very Very Very, but limited by capabilities of OCLC resolver Very 2^128 values Very very
4. Is it interoperable with other identification schemes? are registered URI\'s and is handle based; local ID\'s can be from some other ID scheme (e.g., ISBN number or local accession ID) other internet approaches Readily interoperable with DOI\'s; potentially operable with UR*, PURLs, and UUIDs depending on detailed structures of those TBD used by other schemes (e.g., DOIs); can be represented as a URN or URL Other schemes use these as a basis
5. How compatible is it with the main internet naming schemes? very LSID\'s are URN\'s IP addresses are a form of OID PURL are URLs that require redirection very, ARKs are URL\'s and can be used as such very, Can be used as URN\'s very (see above) by definition
6. Does it require third party maintenance (e.g., a registry and a registry maintainer?) Yes, both registry and resolution services Not explicitly - though authorities (and therefore a registry of authorities) are required yes, registries and registry maintainers Yes Yes, Name Assigning Authorities are registered Yes, to maintain the tools used to create them Yes, Global Handle Registry Yes, domain names for URL\'s; IANA registers URN schemes
7. How dependent is it on a naming authority and how do you know that naming authority will be in business decades or more into the future? Very but well supported by the publishing industry central registry required? A matter of choice OCLC maintains the resolver California Digital Library is the naming authority; has multi-institute support; and about 60 employees No naming authority required Corporation for National Research Initiatives manages the Global Handle Registry; has a fee based business model ?
8. What is the expected longevity of the underlying technologies? How long will the scheme remain viable? as long as the publishing community supports them (are used by lots of journals) widely used in the life sciences; so likely to be long-lived ensure scheme should be as long-lived as the federal government and equivalent international bodies are currently more than a decade old and the WorldCat system is based on it (I.e., a long time) as long as http is viable and users use this scheme Simple, easy to implement technology - so should last some time as long as http is viable and users use it
User Value 1. Will publishers allow it in a citation? Definitely! Yes, though extent of journals accepting this not established not currently accepted by publishers cite as a URL cite as a URL not currently accepted by publishers not explicitly accepted except as a DOI URL\'s are citeable
2. Does the identification scheme have any additional trust value? no no may depend on how the heirarchy is defined no Yes, ARKs explicitly reference a maintenance policy no no URN more than URL - but still not really
3. Does the identifier have meaning? (Should identifiers be transparent or opaque?) Could but not necessary Up to the user Up to the user Up to the user Supports but discourages an opaque component of the identifier Opaque ID Could but not necessary up to the user
Archive Value 1. How maintainable is the identification scheme when data migrates from one archive to another (or even from one location in an archive to another)? Theoretically easy; but requires commitment by archives; could be confusing if the ID\'s are not opaque (e.g., if data with an ORNLDAAC ID were moved somewhere else) As maintainable as any other URN scheme; requires commitment by archives requires commitment by archives very - in fact that\'s why they were invented; but they assume the name of the item doesn\'t change; requires commitment by archives Easy to migrate all the data from one archive to another; moving just some is more difficult; requires commitment by archives Unique across all domains, so will not change as object moves requires commitment by archives URL\'s not very (redirection); URN\'s more so but requires commitment by archives
2. Are there any actual charges or costs involved (e.g., DOI’s may cost only a few cents each; but, even a small archive may have dozen’s of millions of files that should have identifiers)? Yes, though charges per name are minimal no Depends on choice of registration authority and related technologies no No No CRNI charges to assign a prefix to an organization and annual maintenance thereafter yearly fees for domain names…?
3. Does the identification scheme handle data that is not on the web? What about physical objects? no, no - digital resources only web-centric Probably no conceptual difficulties no - only envisioned for on-line resources No, No - on-line resources only Yes, yes (but nobody seems to do this?) no, no - digital resources only no, no
Potential criteria Existing usage within ESDC\'s ORNL CIESIN
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox