 |
 |
I am looking for the easiest possible way to get a legal URI representing a sudoc. My understanding, after looking at this stuff previously, is that info: is a LOT lower barrier than urn:, and that's part of it's purpose. Before Ed or someone else mentions http, to me, using http: URIs would only make sense if the GPO were actually interested in supporting such in a persistent way. I don't really want to have to go down that road just to get a legal URI for a sudoc, but if someone else does, please feel free. :) Jonathan Erik Hetzner wrote: > At Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:36:43 -0400, > Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > >> Thanks Ray. >> >> Oh boy, I don't know enough about SuDoc to describe the syntax rules >> fully. I can spend some more time with the SuDoc documentation (written >> for a pre-computer era) and try to figure it out, or do the best I can. >> I mean, the info registration can clearly point to the existing SuDoc >> documentation and say "one of these" -- but actually describing the >> syntax formally may or may not be possible/easy/possible-for-me-personally. >> >> I can't even tell if normalization would be required or not. I don't >> think so. I think SuDocs don't suffer from that problem LCCNs did to >> require normalization, I think they already have consistent form, but >> I'm not certain. >> >> I'll see what I can do with it. >> >> But Ray, you work for 'the government'. Do you have a relationship >> with a counter-part at GPO that might be interested in getting involved >> with this? >> > > Hi Jonathan - > > Obviously I don’t know your requirements, but I’d like to suggest that > before going down the info: URI road, you read the W3C Technical > Architecture Group’s finding ‘URNs, Namespaces and Registries’ [1]. > > | Abstract > > | This finding addresses the questions "When should URNs or URIs with > | novel URI schemes be used to name information resources for the > | Web?" and "Should registries be provided for such identifiers?". The > | answers given are "Rarely if ever" and "Probably not". Common > | arguments in favor of such novel naming schemas are examined, and > | their properties compared with those of the existing http: URI > | scheme. > > | Three case studies are then presented, illustrating how the http: > | URI scheme can be used to achieve many of the stated requirements > | for new URI schemes. > > best, > Erik Hetzner > > 1. <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library > ;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3 >