@ekansa @paregorios what does a typical OC URI look like? I think "cool URIs" don't need an additional layer of persistence, unless 1) you've got a separate archival resource, perhaps for long term preservation 2) the additional PID is transparent, e.g. it has a different prefix than the HTTP base URL, but keeps the same suffix identifier.
Makes sense?
@steko @paregorios
@aejolene
@sebhth
What do you all think? Will it help, harm, or "meh" to add ARK identifiers to all our URI identified data?
@paregorios @steko @aejolene @sebhth
The effort is minimal, because I can script it. Getting ARKs from EZID just requires API calls.
So, ok, I'll get on it.
@ekansa @paregorios @aejolene @sebhth so ARKs are free to mint? If so, why is #DOI favoured?
@paregorios @aejolene @sebhth @steko
I think Tom called it. Also DOIs get more indexing in different discovery and metrics (including Altmetrics).
EZID supports minting 1 million ARKs / year at $1500 / year service fee.
@ekansa @paregorios @aejolene @sebhth btw, Altmetrics is part of Digital Science which is part of the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group https://www.holtzbrinck.com/
@steko @paregorios
Here's a typical URI:
https://opencontext.org/media/48fb6172-647a-40f6-a576-e50d006a4f52
I also have an ARK id for it:
https://n2t.net/ark:/28722/k2q244j7j
The JSON-LD representation (https://opencontext.org/media/48fb6172-647a-40f6-a576-e50d006a4f52.json) says "owl:sameAs" for the ARK id.
I just want to maximize the probability that someone can look up the citation to an OC record over the years.