> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:08 AM
> 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

The point being that:


provide no advantages over:


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".


Reply via email to