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
|