Talk:Identifier

message: Move from Name and identifier to Identifier?
Motivation: This article really only discusses identifiers. "Name and identifier" is plain silly.
-- Eelis 02:42, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
:This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It was suggested by User:Nichtich to merge Object identifier into this article. I disagree: Even though the object identifier is indeed a type of identifier, it is by itself a key concept of ASN.1 and has well-defined syntax and meaning.
:This justifies an own article, so [don't merge]. Dr. Hok 14:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't merge. OIDs are very specific approach to distributed management of unique identifiers which deserve to be discussed in its own article. Gschadow 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OID was just announced in Korea as a world standard for RFID. The reasons to not merge just keep piling up. http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200704/200704240005.html Scmdn 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't merge. Object identifier is a very specific kind of identifier with a well-defined community and area of use.  MarkWahl 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutley do not merge.  OID is specific in its nature and wildly enough used and respected to warrant its own entry.Si Smith  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipsmi (talk • contribs) 14:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
I removed the "merge" on OID since it does not make much sense to merge it and here are five cons and no pros.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpeylo (talk • contribs) 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Object identifier]] into this article 

message: The Identifier (metadata) article does not present sufficient information to stand individually. It should be merged into this article. Neelix (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorse merge. However, "in metadata" is insufficient context for the definition given. Technical definitions such as this representation term are meaningless without specific reference to the particular frameworks or standards that so define them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: P.S.: I note that a bunch of definitions from Representation term#Sample representation terms have spawned similar separate articles with insufficient context. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Identifier (metadata)]] 

message: Any?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.67.202.23 (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardized virus and bacteria identifier...? 

message: * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+product+batch+number&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
--124.78.228.135 (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info about product batch identifier..... 

message: * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+service+identifier&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
--124.78.228.135 (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info about service batch identifier..... 

message: I wholeheartedly agree that there should be a new, separate article for identifiers in computer science. The way they're currently smooshed together with the generalized term is awkward and confusing. Similarly, saying that they're one and the same is like saying a variable in mathematics is the same as one in computer science. Yes, they're similar, but they're also distinct, with their own rules and nomenclature. A variable in math is an abstract concept. A variable in computer science is a location in memory. Until I can compile the "Identifiers on the back of a statue in the Louvre", the pages should be split. Opinions? Damienivan (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article Titled "Identifier (Computer Science)" 

message: I have removed the following sentence:
* The concept is analogous to that of a "name". 
Aside from the rather useless wikilink to the English language word Analogy, this sentence is also of dubious truth. The term "name" (at least in data circles) is often something used to identify the entity to a human, for example "John Smith". This is very different from the identifier (e.g. 427761), in particular because there is no guarantee that a name is unique. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are analogous. They serve the same basic purpose of designating or identifying, one generally to humans, the other for system purposes. You have pointed out how they differ, but "analogous" does not mean "identical".--Ericjs (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

text: The claim that identifiers are names is mere assertion. I don't believe it; names are a part of speech while identifiers aren't, they simply have a role in some identifying process (which I won't put in the article because I don't have a reference). A reference to a reputable linguist, philosopher, or semiotician would be helpful here (and throughout), otherwise the claim should be withdrawn. In general the whole article, while it contains some good information, reads like someone talking off the top of their head, expounding a personal theory, as opposed to connecting with any appropriate intellectual tradition or doing empirical linguistic scholarship. Jar354 (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifier analagous to Name? 

message: Could someone please add a few sentences to this article mentioning -- perhaps even defining --
"opaque identifiers", "opaque identifier strings", and "opaque strings"?
They are mentioned or alluded to in several other Wikipedia articles, including
"Handle (computing)", "HTTP ETag",
"Semantic URL", "Document type definition",
"Handle System", and "Digest access authentication".
Is the term "opaque identifier" synonymous with "arbitrary identifier"?
I added one sentence describing the difference between serial-number style arbitrary identifiers and version 4 UUID style opaque identifiers, but I'm not really sure that difference really applies to *all* kinds of arbitrary identifiers and *all* kinds of opaque identifiers.
--DavidCary (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  opaque identifier 

message: The article says: "For example, both "Jamie Zawinski" and "Netscape employee number 20" are identifiers for the same specific human being"
Actually, I totally disagree. While we all know who jzw is, both descriptors ("someone called Jamie Zawinski", and "Netscape employee number 20) do not uniquely point to a specific person; I am sure there's more than one Jamie Zawinski in this world, and, since Netscape does not exist anymore, and Jamie, the one we are talking about, is not an employee anyway, both predicates are ambiguous. They are not pointers. They don't identify uniquely a specific person. So they are not identifiers. Of course there's a common misconception that a predicate that is supposed to have a singleton as a solution is something like an identifier; I believe it is important to disambiguate. Know the difference, roughly speaking, between an equation and its root(s).
Vlad Patryshev (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly both "Jamie Zawinski" and "Netscape employee number 20" are identifiers. It is true that they are not unique identifiers, and it is true that one of them is not an up-to-date or currently used identifier. But those facts don't make them "not identifiers". — ¾-10 17:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  a predicate is not an identifier 

message: I'm not fully convinced about the example image chosen, mostly concerned about the legibility of the text. Plus the fact it has literally zero description until you click for details on the image itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.240.54 (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! I just changed it to an image of a car's registration plate. Hopefully that's more useful for readers. Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could a better image have been chosen?