No, not identical URIs.
Let's say I've put a copy of the schema permanently at each of the following
locations.
http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd
http://www.acme.com//mods-3-3.xsd
http://www.takoma.org/standards/mods-3-3.xsd
Three locations, three URIs.
But the issue of
FYI for the larger group. Since many members in the PNW simply cannot
travel to the larger C4L meeting due to budgetary restraints (this year,
and very likely the next), etc -- we will be starting up a PNW local
chapter and hosting a one day C4L meeting for those in the area that are
interested,
This is a bit of mailing list administratativa.
First, the list turned itself off yesterday because we exceeded the 50
messages/day limit. Hmmm... I have turned the list back on.
Second, you can manage your subscription at the following URL. You
might want to turn on digest mode:
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:59 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re:
[CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)
We do just
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Reese, Terry
terry.re...@oregonstate.edu wrote:
FYI for the larger group. Since many members in the PNW simply cannot
travel to the larger C4L meeting due to budgetary restraints (this year,
and very likely the next), etc -- we will be starting up a PNW local
Jonathan Rochkind writes:
Organization need to have a clear understanding of what they are
minting URIs for.
Precisely. And in the real world... they don't always have
that. Neither the minters nor the users of URIs, especially the
users of http URIs, where you can find so many
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:26 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re:
[CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)
This really puzzles me, because I
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Mike Taylor
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:41 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re:
[CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)
I have to say I am suspicious of
Houghton,Andrew writes:
I have to say I am suspicious of schemes like PURL, which for all
their good points introduce a single point of failure into, well,
everything that uses them. That can't be good. Especially as
it's run by the same compary that also runs the often-unavailable
Houghton,Andrew wrote:
RFC 3986 (URI generic syntax) says that http: is a URI scheme not a
protocol. Just because it says http people make all kinds of
assumptions about type of use, persistence, resolvability, etc.
And RFC 2616 (Hypertext transfer protocol) says:
The HTTP protocol is a
If you are planning to attend the Evergreen International Conference
(May 20-22, Athens, Georgia), please note that Early Bird registration
ends tomorrow, Friday, April 3. Also note the NEW conference web
address:
http://www.lyrasis.org/evergreen
We have 18 great programs lined up and two great
Houghton,Andrew writes:
I have to say I am suspicious of schemes like PURL, which
for all their good points introduce a single point of
failure into, well, everything that uses them. That can't
be good. Especially as it's run by the same compary that
also runs the
Houghton,Andrew wrote:
OK, good, then if you are concerned about the PURL services SPOF, take
the freely available PURL software and created a distributed PURL based
system and put it up for the community. I think several people have
looked at this, but I have not heard of any progress or
Isn't there always a single point of failure if you are expecting to be
able to resolve an http URI via the HTTP protocol?
Whether it's purl.org or not, there's always a single point of failure
on a given http URI that you expect to resolve via HTTP, the entity
operating the web server at the
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Karen Coyle
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 10:15 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re:
[CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)
Houghton,Andrew wrote:
RFC 3986
Karen Coyle writes:
OK, good, then if you are concerned about the PURL services SPOF,
take the freely available PURL software and created a distributed
PURL based system and put it up for the community. I think
several people have looked at this, but I have not heard of any
At Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:47:50 +0100,
Mike Taylor wrote:
Erik Hetzner writes:
Without external knowledge that info:doi/10./xxx is a URI, I can
only guess.
Yes, that is true. The point is that by specifying that the rft_id
has to be a URI, you can then use other kinds of URI without
You're right, if there were a web: URI scheme, the world would be a
better place. But it's not, and the world is worse off for it.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that I am sympathetic to Karen's criticisms.
Here is some of my historical perspective (which may well differ from
others').
Please accept my apology for any duplicate copies of this message you
might receive. Redistribute as appropriate.
=
http://www.nypl.org/research/calendar/class/hssl/talkdesc.cfm?id=5351
Of maps and metadata:
Explorations in online access at the National Archives of Australia
Dr. Tim
An account that has a depressing ring of accuracy to it.
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
You're right, if there were a web: URI scheme, the world would be a
better place. But it's not, and the world is worse off for it.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that I am sympathetic to
Hi Ray -
At Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:48:19 -0400,
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
You're right, if there were a web: URI scheme, the world would be a
better place. But it's not, and the world is worse off for it.
Well, the original concept of the ‘web’ was, as I understand it, to
Rob Sanderson wrote:
info URIs, In My Opinion, are ideally suited for long term identifiers
of non information resources. But http URIs are definitely better than
something which isn't a URI at all.
Through this discussion I am clarifying my thoughts on this too. I feel
that info URIs are
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
Note this isn't as much of a problem for born web resources -- nobody's
going to accidentally create an alternate URI for a dbpedia term, because
anybody that knows about dbpedia knows that it lives at dbpedia.
Unless
At Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:29:49 +0100,
Rob Sanderson wrote:
All I meant by that was that the info:doi/ URI is more informative as to
what the identifier actually is than just the doi by itself, which could
be any string. Equally, if I saw an SRW info URI like:
At Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:34:12 -0400,
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
[…]
I think too much of this conversation is about people's ideal vision of
how things _could_ work, rather than trying to make things work as best
as we can in the _actual world we live in_, _as well as_ planning for
the future
I keep telling myself I'm going to stop posting on this thread, but ...
Erik Hetzner writes:
Could somebody explain to me the way in which this identifier:
http://suphoa5d.org/phae4ohg
does not work *as an identifier*, absent any way of getting
information about the referent, in a
Erik Hetzner writes:
Could somebody explain to me the way in which this identifier:
http://suphoa5d.org/phae4ohg
does not work *as an identifier*, absent any way of getting
information about the referent, in a way that:
info:doi/10.10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
does work?
A quick
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 10:44, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com wrote:
Going back to someone's point about living in the real
world (sorry, I forget who), the Inconvenient Truth is that 90% of
programs and 99% of users, on seeing an http: URL, will try to treat
it as a link. They don't know any
Mike Taylor wrote:
Going back to someone's point about living in the real
world (sorry, I forget who), the Inconvenient Truth is that 90% of
programs and 99% of users, on seeing an http: URL, will try to treat
it as a link. They don't know any better.
And they can't know any better because
29 matches
Mail list logo
