 |
 |
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>