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 ).
;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library
;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3