On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> will find at that location. Two different days, two different papers.
> Note that a single location (latest.pdf) contains at different times
> two different Things. And note that a single Thing (the older of the
Ok, Mike, thanks for getting past us flashing gang signs and shouting
rhetoric at each other and make a tangible point.
I would counter that http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/latest.pdf _is_ a
valid identifier (assuming you keep this up), but your example makes
me think it's being asked to be used outside the scope it was intended
to identify. The resource that exists there is *is* the latest of
your august body of work. It, however, may not be
doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x You're talking about two
different concepts. One identifier is related to your document, the
other is related to your intellectual output.
And, yes, I agree it's pedantic, but like you said, that's what identifiers are.
I suppose my point is, there's a valid case for identifiers like your
doi, I think we can agree on that (well, we don't have to agree, these
identifiers will exist and continue to exist long after we've grown
tired of flashing out gang signs). What I don't understand is the
reason to express that identifier as:
can serve exactly the same function *and* be actionable.
I didn't grow bored with the argument, I just figured everybody else had.