On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <rochk...@jhu.edu> wrote: > I admit that "httprange-14" still confuses me. (I have no idea why it's > called "httprange-14" for one thing).
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/14 Some background: http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/2009/02/httprange14-cool-uris-frbr.html > And "http://doi.org/*"; "describes it's own type" only to software that > knows what a URI beginning http://doi.org means, right? How is that different from the software knowing what info:doi/ means? The difference is, how much more software knows what http: means vs. info:? And this, I think, has got to be point here. How many times do we need to marginalize ourselves with our ideals and expectations that nobody else adheres to before we're rendered completely irrelevant? Doesn't it make sense to coopt the mainstream processes and apply them to our ideals? What, exactly, is the resistance here? > 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)? Right, but here again is where we're talking about the difference between a location and the identifier. We're talking about establishing http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x (or something like that -- http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x might be more appropriate) as the identifier for doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x That you can access it via http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x (or resolve it there) doesn't mean that that's the identifier for it. -Ross.
