I admit that "httprange-14" still confuses me. (I have no idea why it's
called "httprange-14" for one thing).
But how do you "identify the URI as being a Real World Object"? I don't
understand what it entails.
And "http://doi.org/*" "describes it's own type" only to software that
knows what a URI beginning http://doi.org means, right?
What about Eric Hellman's point that there are a variety of possible
http URIs (not just possible but _in use_) that encapsulate a DOI, and
given software would have to know all of the possible templates (with
more being created all the time)?
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Jonathan Rochkind
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:08 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB]
>> registering info: uris?)
>> Houghton,Andrew wrote:
>>> Lets separate your argument into two pieces. Identification and
>>> resolution. The DOI is the identifier and it inherently doesn't
>>> tie itself to any resolution mechanism. So creating an info URI
>>> for it is meaningless, it's just another alias for the DOI. I
>>> can create an HTTP resolution mechanism for DOI's by doing:
>>> since the info URI contains the "natural" DOI identifier, wrapping it
>>> in a URI scheme has no value when I could have used the DOI
>>> directly, as in the first HTTP resolution example.
>> I disagree that wrapping it in a URI scheme has no value. We have very
>> much software and schemas that are built to store URIs, even if they
>> don't know what the URI is or what can be done with it, we have
>> infrastructure in place for dealing with URIs.
> Oops... that should have read "... wrapping it in an unresolvable URI
> The point being that:
> provide no advantages over:
> when, per W3C TAG httpRange-14 decision you identify the URI as being a
> Real World Object. When identifying the HTTP URI as a Real World Object,
> it is the same as what Mike said about the info URI that: "the identifier
> describes its own type".