At Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:42:05 -0400,
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> 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. :)
I was a bit oblique, but I was mentioning HTTP.
There is no reason that you cannot register sudoc.info. From there,
all you need is a site that serves a 302 Found for every request, to a
page which says:: this might be a sudoc, I don’t know. There is
nothing wrong with this; just because you have a URI:
does not mean much of anything about what you retrive when you
In fact, there is no reason for you to host a web site at all. There
is no law which says an HTTP URI needs to be derefernceable to serve
as an identifier.
All you really need to do, practically, to make sure that sudoc.info
is owned by somebody who is willing to take on the responsibility of
owning that domain until such time as something useful can be done
And even that is not strictly necessary; just nice to have.
;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library
;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3