Yeah, I thought of the URI encoding issue, that's easy enough to deal
with, makes sense.
I have no idea how to tell if SuDocs are case sensitive or not. But they
ARE all assigned by the GPO, and look-up-able in the GPO catalog. Yeah,
they have to be URL encoded, certainly, but can't we just say "must be a
valid SuDoc class (including book number) assigned by the GPO, but [url
encode it]." This can't be the only use case for essentially arbitrary
strings assigned by a third party controlling authority, that you want
to make into an info: uri, right?
But maybe I'll try doing the best I can, with or without GPO assistance
(Ed Summers said he thought he might know somebody at GPO interested in
identifiers), and maybe run it by you?
If this ends up being a huge time sink -- I'm probably going to give up,
and just use my own illegal info:sudoc identifiers that aren't really
registered at all, which would be bad, but I need a sudoc URI and don't
have a huge amount of time to sink into doing it 'right'.
Believe me, I have already spent quite a bit of time with that document
you reference. It was written for an earlier era, clearly.
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> Pointing to the documentation and saying "one of these" isn't going to work,
> I'm afraid. Most important is to make sure that the syntax is consistent
> with URI syntax. Where the syntax of the identifier you're representing is
> potentially at odds with URI syntax, you might have to make adjustments,
> like percent-encode. So if you're going to register sudoc, you're going to
> have to understand the syntax to some degree, there's really no way around
> it. (I didn't know the lccn syntax, registering it forced me to learn it,
> and I'm a better man for it.)
> I don't know much about SuDoc, and most everything seems to point to
> http://www.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/explain.html which doesn't really
> explain their syntax. (Though if you look a bit harder maybe you'll find
> something better.)
> But I see this example: Y 3.C 76/3:2 K 54
> That's apparently a sudoc. It immediately raises the following flags:
> spaces, slash, colon, and case (sensitivity). For your purposes I don't
> think that colon or slash is a problem. (They become a problem when you are
> using them as special characters for delimitation, but you're not doing
> that.) Spaces, though, have to be percent encoded. (That simply means
> replace each occurence of a space with "%20".)
> You also need to look at case-sensitivity. If sudocs are case-sensitive, no
> problem, if not, then you may want to normalize to either upper or lower
> There may not be any normalization issues (other than case sensitivity, if
> that). Normalization is an issue only if a particular sudoc can be
> represented by more than one string. If so you have two choices:
> 1. prescribe a canonical form (which is the approach we took for LCCNs).
> 2. simply describe the rules for determining when two strings represent the
> same sudoc (there is no rule that says that two different info URIs can't
> refer to the same resource).
> You can contact me privately if you have problems.
> No, sorry, I don't know anyone at GPO. I worked the graveyard shift there
> part time during college. (I had to load mailing machines with junk mail.
> Several junk items loaded into a machine which would combine them into one
> mailing item. The machine would jam about every tenth time. Worst job I ever
> had.) But that was many years ago and that's the last contact I've had with
> Good luck.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Rochkind" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
>> 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
>> 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
>> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
>>> It's a fairly straightforward process, See:
>>> You should look at a few examples first, go to
>>> http://info-uri.info/registry/ and click on a few of those listed in the
>>> left column.
>>> I think registering one for SuDocs would be fairly easy.
>>> The info folks are most concerned that the syntax rules are
>>> well-described. I had registered a few of these before they started
>>> cracking the whip on that (and rightly so), and when I registered info:lc
>>> it became more difficult; you might want to look at that for an example:
>>> Also, normalization - I suggested looking at info:lccn normalization
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jonathan Rochkind" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:12 PM
>>> Subject: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
>>>> Does anyone know the process for registering a sub-scheme for info:
>>>> I'd like to have one for SuDoc classification numbers, info:sudoc/.
>>>> I'm not sure if I can register that on my own, without working with the
>>>> US Government Printing Office, who actually maintains sudocs. But if I
>>>> have to get GPO to do it, I'll probably give up quicker (unless it turns
>>>> out easier than I thought to find the right person at GPO and get them
>>>> to sign on -- I doubt it!). Or if the registration process is really
>>>> long and onerous.
>>>> But if it's easy enough to just fill out a form and get info:sudoc
>>>> registered, I'd rather it be legal than use things that look like an
>>>> info uri but really aren't a legally registered sub-scheme.
>>>> Anyone know?