I disagree. Keep this going. A delete key is in easy reach and if you
have a mail reader that does threading you can easily ignore the
thread. I have been finding this discussion rather educational.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Glen Newton - NRC/CNRC CISTI/ICIST
Research <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I count 75 messages on this topic. Perhaps it is time to take this off
> list? Someone give us a summary when/if this is resolved? Or start a
> new list for this issue and tell us where it is?
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Eric Hellman
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:51 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
>> There are actually a number of http URLs that work like
>> One of them is http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x
>> Another is run by crossref; Some OpenURL ink servers also have doi
>> proxy capability.
>> So for code to extract the doi reliably from http urls, the code needs
>> to know all the possibilities for the doi proxy stem. The proxies also
>> tend to have optional parameters that can control the resolution. In
>> principle, the info:doi/ stem addresses this.
> Again we have moved the discussion to a specific resolution mechanism,
> e.g., OpenURL. OpenURL could have been defined differently, such
> that rft_id and rft_idScheme were available and you used the actual
> DOI value and specified the scheme of the identifier. Then the issue
> of extraction of the identifier value from the URI goes away, because
> there is no URI needed.