Someone off list notified me of at least one third party which has the same
behaviour as the official doi.org lookup, https://doi.pangaea.de/  it does
at least document it's behaviour.

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


On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 at 12:17, Fitchett, Deborah <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I tend to consider it an “unintended feature” myself. ☺ But otherwise this
> is my understanding of the situation too.
>
> As far as I’m aware DOIs proper are all in the form 10.xxxx/some_more_stuff
>
> Deborah
>
> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Conal
> Tuohy
> Sent: Friday, 17 August 2018 1:26 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] exact relationship between DOIs and handles?
>
> 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<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<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]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> > We have a DSpace instance that is configured to issue handle.net<
> http://handle.net>
> > identifiers to all items, so links such as:
> >
> > https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1710<
> https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1710>
> > http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1710<
> http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1710>
> > https://hdl.handle.net/10063/1710<https://hdl.handle.net/10063/1710>
> > http://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<https://doi.org/10063/1710>
> > http://doi.org/10063/1710<http://doi.org/10063/1710>
> > https://dx.doi.org/10063/1710<https://dx.doi.org/10063/1710>
> > http://dx.doi.org/10063/1710<http://dx.doi.org/10063/1710>
> >
> > The lookup at https://www.doi.org/index.html<
> 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<http://doi.org> URLs above valid/legal for this
> item?
> >
> > The documentation on the https://www.doi.org/<https://www.doi.org/> and
> https://handle.net/<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/<http://conaltuohy.com/>
> @conal_tuohy
> +61-466-324297
>
> ________________________________
>
> "The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be
> confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use,
> distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you
> have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by return
> e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together with all
> attachments from your system."
>