Page tree

Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Added notes for 7/25 meeting




Discussion items



Updates from the DWeb Camp (Decentralized Web Conference)John 

~ one week devoted to decentralized approach to web; response to current threats to web preservation. JK framed AITO talk by referencing UC open scholarship culture and the current work vis a vis Elsevier.

Discussion w/Tim Berners-Lee: alternatives to identifier systems. Recommendation: do a pull request to put the issue forward for consideration with W3C technical architecture group. 

Also noted: community in Argentina may have developer time to build turn-key support for ARKs in DSpace.

Strategizing for updates to the English ARK wikipedia page

Note there are two other versions of this page:

For comparison, here are wikipedia pages on

French and Spanish appear to follow the English version of the page closely. How are they maintained? How do bilingual readers chose which version to consult? Sebastien notes that he will compare the apparent quality of FR and EN versions of Wikipedia pages, and will go w/FR if they appear to be roughly the same. EN if it looks better developed/more detailed. If the topic is not found when searching FR, it offers the English page.

It would be useful for us to have the FR, SP versions of the page to have the same content as the EN page.There might be things in the FR version that are not in the EN version.

Kurt: Populate Wikipedia page with more information. Pull information out of the FAQs. Add links out to some of the other resources we’ve already created.

J: is there information that you think is lacking?

Consider making it correspond more to the DOI outline.

Peter: Name assigning authority info in the current ARK Wik seems unnecessary. PURL entry has a history section – would be a good addition for ARKs not present in DOI.

Missing: what ARKs are and how you would use them.

Wikipedia’s strength is in helping you understand why things are – a history. This focus would prevent Wikipedia from being a duplicate of the FAQ.

Wikipedia page needs citations. That’s another way that we could get the FAQ more prominent from the entry. What are other external sources we can cite? We don’t really have too many citable publications. Look for publications on persistent identifiers. Presentations at conferences?

Bertrand: have the architecture/anatomy section later in the document; don’t lead with it.

We always insist that persistence is in the service, and yet we start w/anatomy, that gives the impression that there’s something magic about it, when there’s not.

JK: I almost always choose the Wikipedia page over the main website for the thing. A little more neutrality/less marketing. “I’m glad I went to the Wikipedia page first”. More important to get that right than the brochure page.

Sebastien: Focus on information that is for newbies; concise, non-technical, accessible. Anyone can know what ARKs are for. That’s what Wikipedia is about.

Action items