Interesting insight Conal, I wasn't aware of that service.

https://doi.org/10063/1710 redirects to
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1710 using a 302 redirect,
implying that the server knows where the DOI resides by RFC 7231
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231

If  10063/1710 were not a valid DOI, the DOI server should use 303 (if it
redirects) and  a 400 or 404 if it doesn't.

cheers
stuart
--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky


On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 at 13:27, Conal Tuohy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Kia ora Stuart!
>
> I think the answer to your question is "no, the identifier is not a valid
> DOI".
>
> As evidence, I offer this URI which is supposed return information about
> the Registration Agency which registered that DOI:
> https://doi.org/doiRA/10063/1710
>
> As you know, DOIs are a proper subset of Handles; and functionally, the DOI
> system relies on the Handle system as its infrastructure for URI
> resolution. I believe that when you resolve the URI <
> https://doi.org/10063/1710>, the DOI resolver is simply resolving the
> identifier as a Handle, and not first validating that the Handle is
> actually a valid DOI. I'd regard that as a bug in the DOI's resolver,
> personally.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Conal
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 at 09:37, Stuart A. Yeates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > We have a DSpace instance that is configured to issue handle.net
> > identifiers to all items, so links such as:
> >
> > https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1710
> > http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1710
> > https://hdl.handle.net/10063/1710
> > http://hdl.handle.net/10063/1710
> >
> > all take a web browser to the same content. The following URLs also take
> > web
> > browsers to the same content:
> >
> > https://doi.org/10063/1710
> > http://doi.org/10063/1710
> > https://dx.doi.org/10063/1710
> > http://dx.doi.org/10063/1710
> >
> > The lookup at https://www.doi.org/index.html resolves the doi
> "10063/1710"
> > to the same content.
> >
> > I have two questions:
> >
> > (a) is 10063/1710 a valid/legal doi for this item ?
> > (b) are the doi.org URLs above valid/legal for this item?
> >
> > The documentation on the https://www.doi.org/ and https://handle.net/
> > websites is surprisingly quiet on these issues...
> >
> > [We've been assuming the answer to these questions is 'yes' but yesterday
> > this was questioned by a colleague, so I'm looking for definitive
> answers]
> >
> > cheers
> > stuart
> > --
> > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
> >
>
>
> --
> Conal Tuohy
> http://conaltuohy.com/
> @conal_tuohy
> +61-466-324297
>