This lurker gives it a +1.
Edward M. Corrado wrote:
> 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.
Library Information Systems Specialist
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA 50613
[log in to unmask]