 |
 |
Yeah, I thought of the URI encoding issue, that's easy enough to deal with, makes sense. I have no idea how to tell if SuDocs are case sensitive or not. But they ARE all assigned by the GPO, and look-up-able in the GPO catalog. Yeah, they have to be URL encoded, certainly, but can't we just say "must be a valid SuDoc class (including book number) assigned by the GPO, but [url encode it]." This can't be the only use case for essentially arbitrary strings assigned by a third party controlling authority, that you want to make into an info: uri, right? But maybe I'll try doing the best I can, with or without GPO assistance (Ed Summers said he thought he might know somebody at GPO interested in identifiers), and maybe run it by you? If this ends up being a huge time sink -- I'm probably going to give up, and just use my own illegal info:sudoc identifiers that aren't really registered at all, which would be bad, but I need a sudoc URI and don't have a huge amount of time to sink into doing it 'right'. Believe me, I have already spent quite a bit of time with that document you reference. It was written for an earlier era, clearly. Jonathan Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: > Pointing to the documentation and saying "one of these" isn't going to work, > I'm afraid. Most important is to make sure that the syntax is consistent > with URI syntax. Where the syntax of the identifier you're representing is > potentially at odds with URI syntax, you might have to make adjustments, > like percent-encode. So if you're going to register sudoc, you're going to > have to understand the syntax to some degree, there's really no way around > it. (I didn't know the lccn syntax, registering it forced me to learn it, > and I'm a better man for it.) > > I don't know much about SuDoc, and most everything seems to point to > http://www.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/explain.html which doesn't really > explain their syntax. (Though if you look a bit harder maybe you'll find > something better.) > > But I see this example: Y 3.C 76/3:2 K 54 > > That's apparently a sudoc. It immediately raises the following flags: > spaces, slash, colon, and case (sensitivity). For your purposes I don't > think that colon or slash is a problem. (They become a problem when you are > using them as special characters for delimitation, but you're not doing > that.) Spaces, though, have to be percent encoded. (That simply means > replace each occurence of a space with "%20".) > > You also need to look at case-sensitivity. If sudocs are case-sensitive, no > problem, if not, then you may want to normalize to either upper or lower > case. > > There may not be any normalization issues (other than case sensitivity, if > that). Normalization is an issue only if a particular sudoc can be > represented by more than one string. If so you have two choices: > 1. prescribe a canonical form (which is the approach we took for LCCNs). > 2. simply describe the rules for determining when two strings represent the > same sudoc (there is no rule that says that two different info URIs can't > refer to the same resource). > > You can contact me privately if you have problems. > > No, sorry, I don't know anyone at GPO. I worked the graveyard shift there > part time during college. (I had to load mailing machines with junk mail. > Several junk items loaded into a machine which would combine them into one > mailing item. The machine would jam about every tenth time. Worst job I ever > had.) But that was many years ago and that's the last contact I've had with > GPO. > > Good luck. > > -Ray > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonathan Rochkind" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:36 PM > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? > > > >> Thanks Ray. >> >> Oh boy, I don't know enough about SuDoc to describe the syntax rules >> fully. I can spend some more time with the SuDoc documentation (written >> for a pre-computer era) and try to figure it out, or do the best I can. I >> mean, the info registration can clearly point to the existing SuDoc >> documentation and say "one of these" -- but actually describing the syntax >> formally may or may not be possible/easy/possible-for-me-personally. >> >> I can't even tell if normalization would be required or not. I don't think >> so. I think SuDocs don't suffer from that problem LCCNs did to require >> normalization, I think they already have consistent form, but I'm not >> certain. >> >> I'll see what I can do with it. >> But Ray, you work for 'the government'. Do you have a relationship with >> a counter-part at GPO that might be interested in getting involved with >> this? >> >> Jonathan >> >> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: >> >>> It's a fairly straightforward process, See: >>> http://info-uri.info/registry/register.html >>> >>> You should look at a few examples first, go to >>> http://info-uri.info/registry/ and click on a few of those listed in the >>> left column. >>> >>> I think registering one for SuDocs would be fairly easy. >>> >>> The info folks are most concerned that the syntax rules are >>> well-described. I had registered a few of these before they started >>> cracking the whip on that (and rightly so), and when I registered info:lc >>> it became more difficult; you might want to look at that for an example: >>> http://info-uri.info/registry/OAIHandler?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=reg&identifier=info:lc/ >>> >>> Also, normalization - I suggested looking at info:lccn normalization >>> rules: >>> http://info-uri.info/registry/OAIHandler?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=reg&identifier=info:lccn/ >>> >>> --Ray >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Jonathan Rochkind" <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:12 PM >>> Subject: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Does anyone know the process for registering a sub-scheme for info: >>>> uris? >>>> >>>> I'd like to have one for SuDoc classification numbers, info:sudoc/. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure if I can register that on my own, without working with the >>>> US Government Printing Office, who actually maintains sudocs. But if I >>>> have to get GPO to do it, I'll probably give up quicker (unless it turns >>>> out easier than I thought to find the right person at GPO and get them >>>> to sign on -- I doubt it!). Or if the registration process is really >>>> long and onerous. >>>> >>>> But if it's easy enough to just fill out a form and get info:sudoc >>>> registered, I'd rather it be legal than use things that look like an >>>> info uri but really aren't a legally registered sub-scheme. >>>> >>>> Anyone know? >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>> >>> > >