LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  April 2009

CODE4LIB April 2009

Subject:

Re: registering info: uris?

From:

Erik Hetzner <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:57:17 -0700

Content-Type:

multipart/signed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (89 lines) , text/plain (4 lines) , application/pgp-signature (4 lines)

At Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:29:49 +0100,
Rob Sanderson wrote:
> All I meant by that was that the info:doi/ URI is more informative as to
> what the identifier actually is than just the doi by itself, which could
> be any string.  Equally, if I saw an SRW info URI like:
> 
> info:srw/cql-context-set/2/relevance-1.0
> 
> that's more informative than some ad-hoc URI for the same thing.
> Without the external knowledge that info:doi/xxx is a DOI and
> info:srw/cql-context-set/2/ is a cql context set administered by the
> owner with identifier '2' (which happens to be me), then they're still
> just opaque strings.

Yes, info:doi/10.1111/xxx is more easily recognizable (‘sniffable’) as
a DOI than 10.1111/xxx, both for humans and machines.

If we don’t know, by some external means, that a given string has the
form of some identifier, then we must guess, or sniff it.

But it is good practice to use other means to ensure that we know
whether or not any given string is an identifier, and if it is, what
type it is. Otherwise we can get confused by strings like go:home. Was
that a URI or not?

That said, I see no reason why the URI:

info:srw/cql-context-set/2/relevance-1.0

is more informative than the URI:

http://srw.org/cql-context-set/2/relevance-1.0

As you say, both are just opaque URIs without the additional
information. This information is provided by, in the first case, the
info-uri registry people, or, in the second case, by the organization
that owns srw.org.

> I could have said that http://srw.cheshire3.org/contextSets/rel/ was the
> identifier for it (SRU doesn't care) but that's the location for the
> retrieval documentation for the context set, not a collection of
> abstract access points.
> 
> If srw.cheshire3.org was to go away, then people can still happily use
> the info URI with the continued knowledge that it shouldn't resolve to
> anything.

If srw.cheshire3.org goes away, people can still happily use the http
URI. (see below)

> With the potential dissolution of DLF, this has real implications, as
> DLF have an info URI namespace.  If they'd registered a bunch of URIs
> with diglib.org instead, which will go away, then people would have
> trouble using them.  Notably when someone else grabs the domain and
> starts using the URIs for something else.

The original URIs are still just as useful as identifiers, they have
become less useful as dereferenceable identifiers.

> Now if DLF were to disband AND reform, then they can happily go back to
> using info:dlf/ URIs even if they have a brand new domain.

The info:dlf/ URIs would be the same non-dereferenceable URIs they
always were, true. But what have we gained?

The issue of persistence of dereferenceablity is a real one. There are
solutions, e.g, other organizations can step in to host the domain;
the ARK scheme; or, we can all agree that the diglib.org domain is too
important to let be squatted, and agree that URIs that begin
http://diglib.org/ are special, and should by-pass DNS. [1]

> > I think that all of us in this discussion like URIs. I can’t speak
> > for, say, Andrew, but, tentatively, I think that I prefer
> > <info:doi/10.1111/xxx> to plain 10.111/xxx. I would just prefer
> > <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/xxx>
> 
> info URIs, In My Opinion, are ideally suited for long term
> identifiers of non information resources. But http URIs are
> definitely better than something which isn't a URI at all.

Something we can all agree on! URIs are better than no URIs.

best,
Erik

1. Take with a grain of salt, as this is not something I have fully
thought out the implications of.



;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library ;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager