 |
 |
At Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:18:24 -0400, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > > I am not interested in maintaining a sudoc.info registration, and > neither is my institution, who I wouldn't trust to maintain it (even to > the extent of not letting the DNS registration expire) after I left. I > think even something as simple as this really needs to be committed to > by an organization. So yeah, even "willing to take on the > responsibility of owning that domain until such time as something useful > can be done with it," I do not have, and to me that seems like a > requirement, not just a nice to have. I see your point. I believe that registering a domain would be less work than going through an info URI registration process, but I don’t know how difficult the info URI registration process would be (thus bringing the conversation full circle). [1] > But it certainly is another option. I feel like most people have the > _expectation_ of http resolvability for http URIs though, even > though it isn't actually required. If you want there to be an actual > http server there at ALL, even one that just responds to all > requests with a link to the SuDoc documentation, that's another > thing you need. I think there is a strong expectation that if I resolve a URI, I do not end up with a domain squatter. Otherwise I am not so sure what is expected when using an HTTP URI whose primary purpose is identification, not dereferencing. Personally I would be happy to get either a page telling me to check back later [2], or nothing at all. best, Erik Hetzner 1. My last word on this. Because I am already beating a dead horse, I have put it in a footnote. For $100 and basically no time at all you can have 10 years of sudoc.info. If it takes an organization more than 2 or 3 hours of work to register an info: URI, then domain registration is a better deal, as I see it. 2. <http://lccn.info/2002022641>