I admit that "httprange-14" still confuses me. (I have no idea why it's called "httprange-14" for one thing).

But how do you "identify the URI as being a Real World Object"? I don't understand what it entails.

And "http://doi.org/*"; "describes it's own type" only to software that knows what a URI beginning http://doi.org means, right? What about Eric Hellman's point that there are a variety of possible http URIs (not just possible but _in use_) that encapsulate a DOI, and given software would have to know all of the possible templates (with more being created all the time)?


Houghton,Andrew wrote:
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:



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
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