 |
 |
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > will find at that location. Two different days, two different papers. > Note that a single location (latest.pdf) contains at different times > two different Things. And note that a single Thing (the older of the Ok, Mike, thanks for getting past us flashing gang signs and shouting rhetoric at each other and make a tangible point. I would counter that http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/latest.pdf _is_ a valid identifier (assuming you keep this up), but your example makes me think it's being asked to be used outside the scope it was intended to identify. The resource that exists there is *is* the latest of your august body of work. It, however, may not be doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x You're talking about two different concepts. One identifier is related to your document, the other is related to your intellectual output. And, yes, I agree it's pedantic, but like you said, that's what identifiers are. I suppose my point is, there's a valid case for identifiers like your doi, I think we can agree on that (well, we don't have to agree, these identifiers will exist and continue to exist long after we've grown tired of flashing out gang signs). What I don't understand is the reason to express that identifier as: info:doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x when http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x can serve exactly the same function *and* be actionable. I didn't grow bored with the argument, I just figured everybody else had. -Ross.