> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of > Mike Taylor > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:35 AM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? > > Houghton,Andrew writes: > > So creating an info URI for it is meaningless, it's just another > > alias for the DOI. > > Not quite. Embedding a DOI in an info URI (or a URN) means that the > identifier describes its own type. If you just get the naked string > 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x > passed to you, say as an rft_id in an OpenURL, then you can't tell > (except by guessing) whether it's a DOI, a SICI, and ISBN or a > biological species identifier. But if you get > info:doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x > then you know what you've got, and can act on it accordingly.
Now you are changing the argument to a specific resolution mechanism, e.g., OpenURL. OpenURL could have easily defined rft_idType where you specified DOI, SICI, ISBN, etc. along with its actual identifier value in rft_id. However, given that OpenURL didn't do this, there is no difference plugging either of the following URIs into rft_id: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x info:doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x when I identify the HTTP URI as a Real World Object. This was the whole point of the W3C TAG httpRange-14 decision which the "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" document is based on. So again, wrapping the "natural" DOI in an unresolvable URI scheme is meaningless. When talking about resolution mechanisms any number of implementations are possible, including separating an identifier type from it value or conflating the two. In the two URIs above the only real differences are: 1) http: vs. info: URI scheme 2) an authority named: dx.doi.org vs. doi These are just simple substitutions. Whoever registered the info URI for doi could have easily applied for an authority named: dx.doi.org instead of just doi, then the only difference would be the URI scheme. Andy.