 |
 |
At Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:58:04 -0400, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > > It's interesting that there are at least three, if not four, viewpoints > being represented in this conversation. > > The first argument is over whether all identifiers should be resolvable > or not. While I respect the argument that it's _useful_ to have > resolvable (to something) identifiers , I think it's an unneccesary > limitation to say that all identifiers _must_ be resolvable. There are > cases where it is infeasible on a business level to support > resolvability. It may be for as simple a reason as that the body who > actually maintains the identifiers is not interested in providing such > at present. You can argue that they _ought_ to be, but back in the real > world, should that stand as a barrier to anyone else using URI > identifiers based on that particular identifier system? Wouldn't it be > better if it didn't have to be? > > [ Another obvious example is the SICI -- an identifier for a particular > article in a serial. Making these all resolvable in a useful way is a > VERY non-trivial exersize. It is not at all easy, and a solution is > definitely not cheap (DOI is an attempted solution; which some > publishers choose not to pay for; both the DOI fees and the cost of > building out their own infrastructure to support it). Why should we be > prevented from using identifiers for a particular article in a serial > until this difficult and expensive problem is solved?] > > So I don't buy that all identifiers must always be resolvable, and that > if we can't make an identifier resolvable we can't use it. That excludes > too much useful stuff. I don’t actually think that there is anybody who is arguing that all identifiers must be resolvable. There are people who argue that there are identifiers which must NOT be resolvable; at least in their basic form. (see Stuart Weibel [1]). > […] best, Erik 1. <http://weibel-lines.typepad.com/weibelines/2006/08/uncoupling_iden.html>