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
>