no, that's not at all what it implies. the ofi/name identifiers were
minted as identifiers for namespaces of indentifiers, not as a wrapper
scheme for the identifiers themselves. Yes, it's a bit TOO meta, but
they can be safely ignored unless a new profile is desired.
On Apr 5, 2009, at 10:31 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
URI for an ISBN or SuDocs? I don't think the GPO is going
anywhere, but the GPO isn't committing to supporting an http URI
scheme, and whoever is, who knows if they're going anywhere. That
issue is certainly mitigated by Ross using purl.org for these,
instead of his own personal http URI. But another issue that makes
us want a controlling authority is increasing the chances that
everyone will use the _same_ URI. If GPO were behind the purl.org/
NET/sudoc URIs, those chances would be high. Just Ross on his own,
the chances go down, later someone else (OCLC, GPO, some other guy
like Ross) might accidentally create a 'competitor', which would be
unfortunate. Note this isn't as much of a problem for "born web"
resources -- nobody's going to accidentally create an alternate URI
for a dbpedia term, because anybody that knows about dbpedia knows
that it lives at dbpedia.
So those are my thoughts. Now everyone else can argue bitterly over
them for a while. :)
The ones that really puzzle me, however, are the OpenURL info
namespace URIs for ftp, http, https.... and info. This implies that
EVERY identifier used by OpenURL needs an info URI, even if it is a
URI in its own right. They are under "info:ofi/nam" which is called
"Namespace reserved for registry identifiers of namespaces." There's
something so circular about this that I just get a brain dump when I
try to understand it. Does it make sense to anyone?
kc
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kco...@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Eric Hellman
http://hellman.net/eric/
