> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Mike Taylor
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:35 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
> Houghton,Andrew writes:
> > So creating an info URI for it is meaningless, it's just another
> > alias for the DOI.
> Not quite. Embedding a DOI in an info URI (or a URN) means that the
> identifier describes its own type. If you just get the naked string
> passed to you, say as an rft_id in an OpenURL, then you can't tell
> (except by guessing) whether it's a DOI, a SICI, and ISBN or a
> biological species identifier. But if you get
> then you know what you've got, and can act on it accordingly.
Now you are changing the argument to a specific resolution mechanism,
e.g., OpenURL. OpenURL could have easily defined rft_idType where
you specified DOI, SICI, ISBN, etc. along with its actual identifier
value in rft_id. However, given that OpenURL didn't do this, there
is no difference plugging either of the following URIs into rft_id:
when I identify the HTTP URI as a Real World Object. This was the
whole point of the W3C TAG httpRange-14 decision which the "Cool
URIs for the Semantic Web" document is based on.
So again, wrapping the "natural" DOI in an unresolvable URI scheme
is meaningless. When talking about resolution mechanisms any number
of implementations are possible, including separating an identifier
type from it value or conflating the two. In the two URIs above
the only real differences are:
1) http: vs. info: URI scheme
2) an authority named: dx.doi.org vs. doi
These are just simple substitutions. Whoever registered the info URI
for doi could have easily applied for an authority named: dx.doi.org
instead of just doi, then the only difference would be the URI scheme.