 |
 |
There should be no issue with having both, mainly because like I mentioned earlier, nobody cares about info:uris. Take, for instance, DOIs. What do you see in the wild? Do you ever see info:uris (except in OpenURLs)? If you don't see http://dx.doi.org/ URIs you generally see doi:10... URIs. It seems like having http and info URIs would *have* to be fine, since info:uris *not being dereferenceable* are far less useful (I won't go so far as 'useless') on the web, which is where all this is happening. As Ray mentioned earlier in this thread, there is absolutely no reason an object cannot have multiple identifiers, especially if they stand to serve somewhat different purposes. I guess the way I look at it is: 1. The web is not going to wait for info:uris 2. The web is not going to use info:uris anyway, even after we've exhausted all of the corner cases and come up with the perfect URI model for a given domain, *because there's nothing the web can do with them anyway*. -Ross. On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > So is there anything wrong with having both that http-based PURL URI > available, AND an info uri? Not only available, but in common use? > > It gets complicated thinking about these things. There are potentially > several things wrong with it. > > Jonathan > > Ross Singer wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Leaving aside religious issues I just want to be sure we're clear on one >>> point: the work required for the info URI process is exactly the amount >>> of >>> work required, no more no less. It forces you to specify clear syntax >>> and >>> semantics, normalization (if applicable), etc. If you go a different >>> route >>> because it's less work, then you're probably avoiding doing work that >>> needs >>> to be done. >>> >> >> Avoiding the religious debate that I *think* Ray is referring to (http >> vs. info URIs) and instead raising a different religious debate... >> >> I don't have a problem with going through this process to formalize an >> info URI once a domain has been thoroughly evaluated and worked out, >> but it throws any and all sense of 'agility' out the window and in >> many cases, kills any potential hope of actually seeing these >> identifiers at all. The upfront costs are just too high, the details >> too arcane and the payoff too low for somebody like Jonathan to solve >> an immediate problem. >> >> I'm not saying we shouldn't think these things out beforehand; >> recklessness, of course, is not the answer. Perfection, however, >> being the enemy of the good makes me think the info:uri process isn't >> a particularly good or efficient one for working with real world >> problems. >> >> Add to it that nobody gives a damn about info:uris outside of >> libraries, it seems like a total waste of energy. >> >> Although I suppose that strays back into the original religious debate. >> >> -Ross. >> >> >