> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:08 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB]
> registering info: uris?)
>
> Houghton,Andrew wrote:
> > Lets separate your argument into two pieces. Identification and
> > resolution. The DOI is the identifier and it inherently doesn't
> > tie itself to any resolution mechanism. So creating an info URI
> > for it is meaningless, it's just another alias for the DOI. I
> > can create an HTTP resolution mechanism for DOI's by doing:
> >
> > http://resolve.example.org/?doi=10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://resolve.example.org/?uri=info:doi/10.1111/j.1475-
> 4983.2007.00728.x
> >
> > since the info URI contains the "natural" DOI identifier, wrapping it
> > in a URI scheme has no value when I could have used the DOI
> identifier
> > directly, as in the first HTTP resolution example.
> >
>
> I disagree that wrapping it in a URI scheme has no value. We have very
> much software and schemas that are built to store URIs, even if they
> don't know what the URI is or what can be done with it, we have
> infrastructure in place for dealing with URIs.
Oops... that should have read "... wrapping it in an unresolvable URI
scheme..."
The point being that:
urn:doi:*
info:doi:*
provide no advantages over:
http://doi.org/*
when, per W3C TAG httpRange-14 decision you identify the URI as being a
Real World Object. When identifying the HTTP URI as a Real World Object,
it is the same as what Mike said about the info URI that: "the identifier
describes its own type".
Andy.
|