Rough comparison
| English version | French version |
| Presentation (persistance, inflections, persistence = a matter of service, resolution tools : Noid, EZID) | Presentation (persistence, list of what ARKs can identify, qualifier part) |
| Structure (NAAN, NMAH, qualifier) | Structure : URL / name ARK (error : the name ARK is considered a URL in the article) 1 identifier, 1..* NMAH Commented example (actionable / non actionable part) NMA (make the identifier actionable) NAAN |
| List of sample NAANs + presentation of the NAAN registry | Use of ARKs - List of NAANs - Use by the BnF - Use by the CDL |
| Generic services : Access services (what it does) Policy service (what it does) Description service (what it does) | Missing |
First analysis
The French version is not a translation of the English one. Each version has been conceived independently from the other. The English version is better, it should be the basis for evolution ; then the French version could be translated from the English one.
As mentioned during last meeting, a list of NAANs is unnecessary. A link to the NAAN registry is enough
Corrections of errors in the French version (the ARK id is not a URL but can be (and is in a majority of cases) embedded in a URL ; neither is it a URI even though it is based on the URI syntax
Additions in the english version: add the distinction between the ARK name and the URL that can embed it.
Target structure for the article
- Presentation (could be kept as is)
- History of ARKs
- Governance of ARKs (CDL, AITO group, open nature of ARKs, open forum)
- Generic services (before the structure)
- Structure (URL vs ARK, anatomy of the ARK : scheme/NAAN/name). Proposal : illustrate with examples
- Use of ARKs : proposal : areas of use with the map of NAANs ; center of gravity of ARKs = memory institutions (but not limited to them
With open questions :
- Should we add a section "relationship with other identifiers"? I think it might prove a time-consuming task which might lead to endless discussions on Wikipedia; we could be considered biassed as the ARK outreach group. In any case we can only state facts
- Should we add a "Tools" section? It might be better to point to an external list of tools (as for NAANs)
