 |
 |
From: "Houghton,Andrew" <[log in to unmask]> > The point being that: > > urn:doi:* > info:doi:* > > provide no advantages over: > > http://doi.org/* I think they do. I realize this is pretty much a dead-end debate as everyone has dug themselves into a position and nobody is going to change their mind. It is a philosophical debate and there isn't a right answer. But in my opinion .... I won't use the doi example because it's overloaded. Let's talk about the hypothetical sudoc. I think info:sudoc/xyz provides an advantages over: http://sudoc.org/xyz if the latter is not going to resolve. Why? Because it drives me nuts to see http URIs everywhere that give all appearances of resolvability - browsers, editors, etc. turn them into clickable links. Now, if you are setting up a resolution service where you get the document that the sudoc identifies when you click on the URI, then http is appropriate. The *actual document*. Not a description of it in lieu of the document. And the so-called architectural justification that it's ok to return metadata instead of the resource (representation) -- I don't buy it. --Ray