BPs 2 and 22 are duplicates

[lvdbrink]

Our Best Practice 2: Reuse existing (authoritative) identifiers when available looks like it could be a duplicatie of Best Practice 22: Link to resources with well-known or authoritative identifiers.

The first is in the Assigning identifiers section, the second in Linking spatial data. I added content to the first one today. Please check whether they are duplicates and if BP 2 content should be moved to BP 22, and removed.

[6a6d74]

Hi @lvdbrink ... I don't think they're duplicates. My thought is as follows:

BP2 is about assignment of an identifier to the thing you're interested in publishing.
BP22 is about relating your thing to other things with well-known identifiers ... for example, during our f2f we talked about relating Surrey University to Guildford [http://sws.geonames.org/2647793].

Clearly these are related. We should identify the related nature of these BPs within the doc.

[lvdbrink]

Okay, clear. Part of the text of BP2 could then very well be a better fit for BP22. Please cut&past whatever is appropriate. I added a reference to BP22 and this issue to the text of BP2.

[lvdbrink]

No longer relevant because of document restructuring. Partly now in BP7 and partly in BP14.