 |
 |
Someone off list notified me of at least one third party which has the same behaviour as the official doi.org lookup, https://doi.pangaea.de/ it does at least document it's behaviour. cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 at 12:17, Fitchett, Deborah < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > I tend to consider it an “unintended feature” myself. ☺ But otherwise this > is my understanding of the situation too. > > As far as I’m aware DOIs proper are all in the form 10.xxxx/some_more_stuff > > Deborah > > From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Conal > Tuohy > Sent: Friday, 17 August 2018 1:26 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] exact relationship between DOIs and handles? > > Kia ora Stuart! > > I think the answer to your question is "no, the identifier is not a valid > DOI". > > As evidence, I offer this URI which is supposed return information about > the Registration Agency which registered that DOI: > https://doi.org/doiRA/10063/1710<https://doi.org/doiRA/10063/1710> > > As you know, DOIs are a proper subset of Handles; and functionally, the DOI > system relies on the Handle system as its infrastructure for URI > resolution. I believe that when you resolve the URI < > https://doi.org/10063/1710<https://doi.org/10063/1710>>, the DOI resolver > is simply resolving the > identifier as a Handle, and not first validating that the Handle is > actually a valid DOI. I'd regard that as a bug in the DOI's resolver, > personally. > > Cheers! > > Conal > > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 at 09:37, Stuart A. Yeates <[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > > We have a DSpace instance that is configured to issue handle.net< > http://handle.net> > > identifiers to all items, so links such as: > > > > https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1710< > https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1710> > > http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1710< > http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1710> > > https://hdl.handle.net/10063/1710<https://hdl.handle.net/10063/1710> > > http://hdl.handle.net/10063/1710<http://hdl.handle.net/10063/1710> > > > > all take a web browser to the same content. The following URLs also take > > web > > browsers to the same content: > > > > https://doi.org/10063/1710<https://doi.org/10063/1710> > > http://doi.org/10063/1710<http://doi.org/10063/1710> > > https://dx.doi.org/10063/1710<https://dx.doi.org/10063/1710> > > http://dx.doi.org/10063/1710<http://dx.doi.org/10063/1710> > > > > The lookup at https://www.doi.org/index.html< > https://www.doi.org/index.html> resolves the doi "10063/1710" > > to the same content. > > > > I have two questions: > > > > (a) is 10063/1710 a valid/legal doi for this item ? > > (b) are the doi.org<http://doi.org> URLs above valid/legal for this > item? > > > > The documentation on the https://www.doi.org/<https://www.doi.org/> and > https://handle.net/<https://handle.net/> > > websites is surprisingly quiet on these issues... > > > > [We've been assuming the answer to these questions is 'yes' but yesterday > > this was questioned by a colleague, so I'm looking for definitive > answers] > > > > cheers > > stuart > > -- > > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky > > > > > -- > Conal Tuohy > http://conaltuohy.com/<http://conaltuohy.com/> > @conal_tuohy > +61-466-324297 > > ________________________________ > > "The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be > confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use, > distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you > have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by return > e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together with all > attachments from your system." >