Comments on the NISO Institutional Identifier (I2) Working Group Midterm Report
- Preliminary discussion email archive is in the 'discussion' page (click on 'discussion' tab) of this wikipage
The NISO Institutional Identifier (I2)  is proposed as a globally unique, robust, scalable and interoperable identifier with the sole purpose of uniquely identifying institutions. The I2 consists of two parts:
- an identifier standard that includes the metadata needed to uniquely identify the organization -- including documenting relationships with other institutions that are critical for establishing identity -- and
- a framework for implementation and use.
Comments from members of the LLD XG sent to the I2 Working Group
Note: given the tight deadline, the comments have not been approved by the group as a whole.
1 The I2 group should bring a Linked Data perspective into its next phase of work.
2.The Linked Data perspective may require the I2 WG to revisit its purposes in order to align its ‘information supply chain’ with linked data. (Currently #2 purpose is: "Identify institutions engaged in the selection, purchase, licensing, storage, description, management, and delivery of information (“information supply chain”).”) 
3 URI should be included in the final version of metadata. (currently the report states that "The initial version of the metadata did not include the URI. This element will become part of the final version of the metadata if it is deemed a valuable addition to the standard.”) 
I^2 identifiers should be http URIs so that agents anywhere in the world can easily dereference the identifier and get back information about the institution. This http identifier should behave according to Linked Data conventions so that humans and machines can use HTTP content negotiation to retrieve a convenient representation (HTML, XML, RDF, etc.) without confusing the institution’s identity with the identity of the various web document representations. 
4. For the framework for implementation and use part, the spec should at least:
(*) acknowledge that these identifiers will be "actualized" as HTTP URIs.
(*) suggest how to HTTP URI-ize the identifiers;
(*) decide whether those HTTP URIs are for info or non-info resources and show the consequences.
(*) HTTP URI patterns for "APIs" that leverage the identifiers.
(*) recommend that data be made available using RDF serializations (rdf/xml, RDFa, turtle) when URLs are resolved.
(*) provide guidance on what existing and/or new RDF vocabularies should be used when publishing RDF data about institutions.
5. A proposed OWL ontology for I2 (in JPG) and the comments by the author (Jeff Young) is attached. (See in Discussion of this page).