Hi Jonathan,
On 3/27/2012 3:27 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Leigh Dodds<le...@ldodds.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jonathan A Rees<r...@mumble.net> wrote:
...
There is a difference, since what is described could be an IR that
does not have the description as content. A prime example is any DOI,
e.g.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000462
(try doing conneg for RDF). The identified resource is an IR as you
suggest, but the representation (after the 303 redirect) is not its
content.
A couple of comments here:
1. Its not any DOI. I believe CrossRef are still the only registrar
that support this, but I might have missed an announcement. That's
still 50m DOIs though
You are right, it's not all registrars. I meant Crossref DOIs.
I think Datacite DOIs do this too, but I'm not sure.
2. Are you sure its an Information Resource?
Nobody can be sure of any such question. I would say it is (as would
be a variety of FRBR Works or Expressions or Manifestations, and many
other things besides), but there is nothing I could possibly say that
would persuade you of this.
This is why, as Tim and I keep saying, you have to forget about the
"information resource" nonsense and focus instead on the idea of
content or instantiation. I assume you're aware of what I've written
on this subject, so it would be pointless for me to say more here.
I find this rather remarkable when in your own call [1] you state this
Rule for Engagement:
"9. Kindly avoid arguing in the change proposals over the terminology
that is used in the baseline document. Please use the terminology that
it uses. If necessary discuss terminology questions on the list as
document issues independent of the 303 question."
Either the TAG is going to address this terminology head on or it is
not. It is one of the cruxes to the problem, and not just because people
are using it as an excuse to justify 200s.
I will be saying more about this shortly.
Thanks, Mike
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uddp/change-proposal-call.html
Jonathan A Rees, 29 February 2012
I hope the TAG will make a clear statement about this to help people
stop bickering about this kind of thing.
Often I think people attack "information resource" just because they
want to use 200s for their linked data descriptions. This is a rather
indirect tactic, and it misses the whole point of httpRange-14(a),
which admittedly was a screwup in execution, but not idiotic in
motivation.
Jonathan
The DOI handbook [1]
notes that while typically used to identify intellectual property a
DOI can be used to identify anything. The CrossRef guidelines [2]
explain that "[a]s a matter of current policy, the CrossRef DOI
identifies the work, not its various potential manifestations...".
Is a FRBR work an Information Resource? Personally I'd say not, but
others may disagree. But as Dan Brickley has noted elsewhere in the
discussion, there's other nuances to take into account.
[1]. http://www.doi.org/handbook_2000/intro.html#1.6
[2]. http://crossref.org/02publishers/15doi_guidelines.html
Cheers,
L.
