 |
 |
I agree with this as well. I guess it just depends on whether you think this needs to be done prior to facitating the process to mint URIs or after. The advantage to the former is that it will actually get documented. Speaking of, if anybody wants to help formalize this for the purl method, I'll be happy to work on it with somebody. -Ross. On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Erik Hetzner <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > At Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:12:39 -0400, > Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress 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. > > Reading over your previous message regarding mapping SuDocs syntax to > URI syntax, I completely agree about the necessity of clarifying these > rules. > > But I was referring to the bureaucratic overhead (little thought it > may be) in registering an info: URI. This overhead may or may not be > useful, but it is there, including a submission process, internal > review, & public comments (according the draft info URI registry > policy). > > -Erik > > ;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library > ;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3 > >