> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of > Jonathan Rochkind > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:08 AM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] > registering info: uris?) > > Houghton,Andrew wrote: > > Lets separate your argument into two pieces. Identification and > > resolution. The DOI is the identifier and it inherently doesn't > > tie itself to any resolution mechanism. So creating an info URI > > for it is meaningless, it's just another alias for the DOI. I > > can create an HTTP resolution mechanism for DOI's by doing: > > > > http://resolve.example.org/?doi=10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x > > > > or > > > > http://resolve.example.org/?uri=info:doi/10.1111/j.1475- > 4983.2007.00728.x > > > > since the info URI contains the "natural" DOI identifier, wrapping it > > in a URI scheme has no value when I could have used the DOI > identifier > > directly, as in the first HTTP resolution example. > > > > I disagree that wrapping it in a URI scheme has no value. We have very > much software and schemas that are built to store URIs, even if they > don't know what the URI is or what can be done with it, we have > infrastructure in place for dealing with URIs.
Oops... that should have read "... wrapping it in an unresolvable URI scheme..." The point being that: urn:doi:* info:doi:* provide no advantages over: http://doi.org/* when, per W3C TAG httpRange-14 decision you identify the URI as being a Real World Object. When identifying the HTTP URI as a Real World Object, it is the same as what Mike said about the info URI that: "the identifier describes its own type". Andy.