And DOIs are just a managed implementation of Handles which the IDF created, so you could go the Handles route for free. But then you lose the CrossRef services, etc. if that is important to you.

John P. Rees, MA, MLIS
Curator, Archives and Modern Manuscripts
History of Medicine Division, MSC 3819
National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20894

-----Original Message-----
From: Jodi Schneider [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Assigning DOI for local content

The first question is: what are they trying to accomplish by having DOIs?

Do they have a long-term plan for persistence of their content? Financial

If they're looking for persistent identifiers, I don't understand (a
priori), why DOI is better, as an identifier scheme, than any other
'persistent identifier scheme' (ARK [1], PURL, Handle, etc[2]). (Though I
really like CrossRef and the things they're doing.)



On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Bucknell, Terry <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> You should be able to find all the information you need about CrossRef fees
> and rules at:
> and
> Information about the system of registering and maintaining DOIs is at:
> Note that as well as registering DOIs for the articles in LLT, LLT would be
> obliged to link to the articles cited by LLT articles (for cited articles
> that have DOIs too). Looking at the LLT site, it looks like they would have
> to change their 'abstract' pages to 'abstract plus cited refs', or change
> the way that their PDFs are created so that they include DOI links for cited
> references. (Without this the whole system would fail: publishers would
> expect traffic to come to them, but wouldn't have to send traffic
> elsewhere).
> I'd agree that DOIs are in general a Good Thing (and for e-books / e-book
> chapters, and reference work entries as well as e-journal articles). The
> CrossRef fees are deliberately set so as not to exclude single-title
> publishers. Here's an example of a single-title, university-based e-journal
> in the UK that provides DOIs, so it must be a CrossRef member:
> Terry Bucknell
> Electronic Resources Manager
> University of Liverpool
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: 17 November 2009 23:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Assigning DOI for local content
> So I have no actual experience with this.
> But you have to pay for DOI's.  I've never done it, but I don't think
> you neccesarily have to run your own purl server -- CrossRef takes care
> of it.  Of course, if your documents are going to be moving all over the
> place, if you run your own purl server and register your purls with
> CrossRef, then when a document moves, you can update your local purl
> server; otherwise, you can update CrossRef, heh.
> It certainly is useful to have DOIs, I agree.  I would suggest they
> should just contact cross-ref and get information on the cost, and what
> their responsibilities are, and then they'll be able to decide.  If the
> 'structure of their content' is journal articles, then, sure DOI is
> pretty handy for people wanting to cite or link to those articles.
> Jonathan
> Ranti Junus wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I was asked by somebody from a college @ my institution whether they
> > should go with assigning DOI for their journal articles:
> >
> >
> > I can see the advantage of this approach and my first thought is more
> > about whether they have resources in running their purl server, or
> > whether they would need to do it through crossref (or any other
> > agency.) Has anybody had any experience about this?
> >
> > Moreover, are there other factors that one should consider (pros and
> > cons) about this? Or, looking at the structure of their content,
> > whether they ever need DOI? Any ideas and/or suggestions?
> >
> >
> > Any insights about this is much appreciated.
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> > ranti.
> >
> >