On Mon, 14 Apr 2025, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Remember the point of this dicussion, that ORCID is an identifier that is likely to help
find people whose contact info has gone stale. An "unmaintained" library
catalog doesn't strike me as useful for that purpose.
There is no doubt that ORCID is the better identifier. *Right now*.
I just wanted to point out that there are others.
Thinking in terms of decades has taught me that properties and preferences can
change, and I wanted to point out that ORCIDs are not the only persistent
personal identifier out there that is here to stay.
So I’ll stick to my main point: Design for choice.
I guess I'll stick to my point, which is that the reason we have an XML
vocabulary is so we can assign semantics to the fields. If we know that a
thing is an ORCID, we can do ORCID-y things with it.
I supppose Jay's proposal would work, but it just adds a level of
indirection that I don't find very useful. Now we'd have to keep track of
the permissible stable-person-identifier type fields along with what to do
with them. I would think that the code that says "aha, this is a
stable-person-identifier of type orcid, so render it so and so" would be
no simpler than code that says "aha, this is an orcid so render it so and
so."
<stable-person-identifier type=“orcid” uri=“https://…” />
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
