From: "Houghton,Andrew" <hough...@oclc.org>

The point being that:

urn:doi:*
info:doi:*

provide no advantages over:

http://doi.org/*


I think they do.

I realize this is pretty much a dead-end debate as everyone has dug themselves into a position and nobody is going to change their mind. It is a philosophical debate and there isn't a right answer. But in my opinion ....

I won't use the doi example because it's overloaded. Let's talk about the hypothetical sudoc. I think info:sudoc/xyz provides an advantages over: http://sudoc.org/xyz if the latter is not going to resolve.

Why? Because it drives me nuts to see http URIs everywhere that give all appearances of resolvability - browsers, editors, etc. turn them into clickable links. Now, if you are setting up a resolution service where you get the document that the sudoc identifies when you click on the URI, then http is appropriate. The *actual document*. Not a description of it in lieu of the document. And the so-called architectural justification that it's ok to return metadata instead of the resource (representation) -- I don't buy it.

--Ray

Reply via email to