I would counter that Dublin Core has been pretty successful with:
More so than MODS and SRU combined, I would say. What does that say
to you (other than LC's bad SEO strategy)?
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> A concrete example.
> The MODS schema, version 3.3, has an info identifier, for SRU purposes:
> So in an SRU request you can say"
> Meaning you want records returned in the mods version 3.3 schema. And
> that's really the purpose of the schema identifier. Both the client and
> server know the schema by this identifier - or the server doesn't know it
> at all and the request fails - but nobody wants to resolve the identifier.
> Now in contrast, the schema is at
> And it's also at:
> And also:
> So there you have five http "identifiers" for the schema.
> Which is the better identifier for this purpose? The single info identifer,
> or a choice http identifers, one for every possible location where the
> schema may reside (which is more than these five). If the answer is that
> it's better to use one of the http identifiers, how do you know that the one
> you pick is the one that the server recognizes it by? Or should the server
> maintain a list of all possible locations?
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 12:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB]
> registering info: uris?)
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> But shouldn't we be able to know the difference between an identifier and
>>> locator? Isn't that the problem here? That you don't know which it is if
>>> starts with http://.
>> But you do if it starts with http://dx.doi.org
>> I still don't see the difference. The same logic that would be
>> required to parse and understand the info: uri scheme could be used to
>> apply towards an http uri scheme.