At Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:56:42 -0400,
Ross Singer wrote:
So, in a what is probably a vain attempt to put this debate to rest, I
created a partial redirect PURL for sudoc:
http://purl.org/NET/sudoc/
If you pass it any urlencoded sudoc string, you'll be redirected to
the GPO's Aleph catalog
From: Erik Hetzner erik.hetz...@ucop.edu
I believe that registering a domain would be less
work than going through an info URI registration process, but I don’t
know how difficult the info URI registration process would be (thus
bringing the conversation full circle). [1]
Leaving aside
That's got a session token in it, Andrew. Not to mention it will no
longer resolve to anything whenever GPO changes their ILS platform.
You guys don't seem to believe that I've spent a chunk of time
investigating all this stuff before I even brought it up here. I did,
really!
Jonathan
I think this is a good point.
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
From: Erik Hetzner erik.hetz...@ucop.edu
I believe that registering a domain would be less
work than going through an info URI registration process, but I don’t
know how difficult the info URI registration process
So is there anything wrong with having both that http-based PURL URI
available, AND an info uri? Not only available, but in common use?
It gets complicated thinking about these things. There are potentially
several things wrong with it.
Jonathan
Ross Singer wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at
Jonathan Rochkind writes:
So is there anything wrong with having both that http-based PURL URI
available, AND an info uri? Not only available, but in common use?
Yes, of course! You don't want _two_ vocabularies of URIs for SUDOCs!
_/|_
There should be no issue with having both, mainly because like I
mentioned earlier, nobody cares about info:uris.
Take, for instance, DOIs. What do you see in the wild? Do you ever
see info:uris (except in OpenURLs)? If you don't see
http://dx.doi.org/ URIs you generally see doi:10... URIs.
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 16:08 +0100, Ross Singer wrote:
There should be no issue with having both, mainly because like I
mentioned earlier, nobody cares about info:uris.
s/nobody cares/the web doesn't care/
'The Web' isn't the only use case. There are plenty of reasons for
having non
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
r...@loc.gov wrote:
Nor do people outside of libraries care about identifiers.
Except, of course, for Tim Berners-Lee and anybody who listens to him:
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
-Ross.
From: Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
nobody gives a damn about info:uris outside of
libraries,
Nor do people outside of libraries care about identifiers.
--Ray
Ross Singer writes:
There should be no issue with having both, mainly because like I
mentioned earlier, nobody cares about info:uris.
Take, for instance, DOIs. What do you see in the wild? Do you ever
see info:uris (except in OpenURLs)? If you don't see
http://dx.doi.org/ URIs you
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Rob Sanderson azar...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:
If you want an identifier that *explicitly* cannot be dereferenced, then
info URIs are a good choice. If you want one that can be dereferenced
to some representation of the identified object, then HTTP is the only
Because the ability to de-reference seems to be the main reason to use
an HTTP URI as an identifier, and the main reason that some people
prefer an HTTP URI as an identifier to an info: URI.
Jonathan
Mike Taylor wrote:
Ross Singer writes:
There should be no issue with having both, mainly
Jonathan Rochkind writes:
Take, for instance, DOIs. What do you see in the wild? Do you ever
see info:uris (except in OpenURLs)? If you don't see
http://dx.doi.org/ URIs you generally see doi:10... URIs. It seems
like having http and info URIs would *have* to be fine, since
This is a long argument that's been going on in other communities for a
long time, Mike. I can see both sides.
Jonathan
Mike Taylor wrote:
Jonathan Rochkind writes:
Take, for instance, DOIs. What do you see in the wild? Do you ever
see info:uris (except in OpenURLs)? If you
Houghton,Andrew writes:
Take, for instance, DOIs. What do you see in the wild? Do
you ever see info:uris (except in OpenURLs)? If you don't see
http://dx.doi.org/ URIs you generally see doi:10... URIs. It
seems like having http and info URIs would *have* to be fine,
Meanwhile, there are others who are arguing just as strongly that
identifiers should _always_ be resolvable.
Seriously, this debate has been going on in a while in other forums, we
aren't the first to have it. I can see both sides, neither seems
obviously right to me. Which I guess suggests
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Mike Taylor
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:15 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
The problem is that, after setting up a non-dereferencable http: URI
to name something
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:16 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
Some hints of the existing argument in other forums can be found in
this
post by
At Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:12:39 -0400,
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
Leaving aside religious issues I just want to be sure we're clear on one
point: the work required for the info URI process is exactly the amount of
work required, no more no less. It forces you to specify clear
I agree with this as well. I guess it just depends on whether you
think this needs to be done prior to facitating the process to mint
URIs or after.
The advantage to the former is that it will actually get documented.
Speaking of, if anybody wants to help formalize this for the purl
method,
It's interesting that there are at least three, if not four, viewpoints
being represented in this conversation.
The first argument is over whether all identifiers should be resolvable
or not. While I respect the argument that it's _useful_ to have
resolvable (to something) identifiers , I
On Mar 30, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
From: Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
nobody gives a damn about info:uris outside of
libraries,
Nor do people outside of libraries care about identifiers.
You might be surprised: http://www.lsrn.org/
-hilmar
At Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:58:04 -0400,
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
It's interesting that there are at least three, if not four, viewpoints
being represented in this conversation.
The first argument is over whether all identifiers should be resolvable
or not. While I respect the argument that
From: Hilmar Lapp hl...@duke.edu
Nor do people outside of libraries care about identifiers.
You might be surprised: http://www.lsrn.org/
yes, I overstated, let me rephrase. There are communities who are
interested in specific object classes and want identifier schemes for them.
For
Erik Hetzner wrote:
I don’t actually think that there is anybody who is arguing that all
identifiers must be resolvable. There are people who argue that there
are identifiers which must NOT be resolvable; at least in their basic
form. (see Stuart Weibel [1]).
There are indeed people
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:52 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
But when did someone suggest that all identifiers must be resolvable?
When Andrew
There are obviously other uses for URIs than sticking them in an 'href'
attribute of an a. Like, the uses I thought this conversation was about?
What are we talking about again?
Houghton,Andrew wrote:
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rochkind
Genny,
I'm not really sure either--I was just the scribe for that session!
The main difference I see is that clicking into a Plone website (when
logged in) changes to edit mode.
Sorry to not have a better answer.
-Jodi
On Mar 9, 2009, at 7:35 PM, Genny Engel wrote:
I have heard this
Greetings! We're writing to invite you to get involved with plone4lib. We're
a small online community using the open-source Plone content management
system in libraries.
Please visit http://plone4lib.org to read about how libraries around the
world are using Plone, or add your own Plone-based
At Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:52:10 -0400,
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Erik Hetzner wrote:
I don’t actually think that there is anybody who is arguing that all
identifiers must be resolvable. There are people who argue that there
are identifiers which must NOT be resolvable; at least in their
31 matches
Mail list logo
