Ray, you are absolutely right. These would be bad identifiers. But
let's say they're all identical (which I think is what you're saying,
right?), then this just strengthens the case for indirection through a
service like purl.org. Then it doesn't *matter* that all of these are
different location
I'm not neccesarily arguing anything. I think either way _could_ work,
or _could_ end up not working as well as the other one.
I think that it's harder for someone to mint an info uri without knowing
what they are doing. If a uri is in the info registry, you know someone
at least had to think
At Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:34:45 +0100,
Mike Taylor wrote:
> Not quite. Embedding a DOI in an info URI (or a URN) means that the
> identifier describes its own type. If you just get the naked string
> 10./j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x
> passed to you, say as an rft_id in an OpenURL, then you can'
We do just fine minting our URIs at LC, Andy. But we do appreciate your
concern.
The analysis of our MODS URIs misses the point, I'm afraid. Let's forget
the set I cited (bad example) and assume that the schema is replicated at
several locations (geographically dispersed) all of which are pl
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:23 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification
>
> Houghton,Andrew wrote:
> >
> > Organizations need to have a clear under
An LCCN is useful because I can use it to look up records in _multiple_
different databases. I suppose that you will argue this is a form of
"de-referencing", but it is not a canonical de-referencing, because I
want and need to do it in multiple places. It is also not a
de-referencing that can
My point is that I don't see how they're different in practice.
And one of them actually allowed you to do something from your email client.
-Ross.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Ross, I don't get your point. My point was about the confusion between two
> things that begin
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
wrote:
> Even more to the point: there is no sound definition of "dereference". To
> dereference a resource means to retrieve a representation of it. There has
> never been any agreement within the w3c of what constitutes a
> rep
Houghton,Andrew wrote:
Organization need to have a clear understanding of what they are minting
URIs for.
Precisely. And in the real world... they don't always have that. Neither
the minters nor the users of URIs, especially the users of http URIs,
where you can find so many potential ht
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Karen Coyle
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:06 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re:
> [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)
>
> The general convention is that
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> I completely disagree. There are all sorts of useful identifiers I use in
> my work every day that can not be automatically dereferenced.
How are they useful to you? I'm seriously just asking for examples
here, not trying to start an ar
Ross, I don't get your point. My point was about the confusion between
two things that begin: http:// but that are very different in practice.
What's yours?
kc
Ross Singer wrote:
Your email client knew what do with:
info:doi/10./j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x ?
doi:10./j.1475-4983.2007.00
I was talking to Ross a bit in channel about this, but one consideration
is encouraging consistency.
If everyone uses http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/[whatever] to identify
that, that's fine. If some people were using that, and other people
were using http://purl.org/NET/dc..., and other peo
Your email client knew what do with:
info:doi/10./j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x ?
doi:10./j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x ?
Or did you recognize the info:doi scheme and Google it?
Or would this, in case of 99% of the world, just look like gibberish
or part of some nerd's PGP key?
-Ross.
On Wed, A
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 12:55 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification
>
> A concrete example.
>
> The MODS schema, version 3.3
I would counter that Dublin Core has been pretty successful with:
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
and
http://purl.org/dc/terms/
More so than MODS and SRU combined, I would say. What does that say
to you (other than LC's bad SEO strategy)?
-Ross.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Ray Denenber
Ross Singer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
But shouldn't we be able to know the difference between an identifier and a
locator? Isn't that the problem here? That you don't know which it is if it
starts with http://.
But you do if it starts with http://dx.do
A concrete example.
The MODS schema, version 3.3, has an info identifier, for SRU purposes:
info:srw/schema/1/mods-v3.3
So in an SRU request you can say"
recordSchema=info:srw/schema/1/mods-v3.3
Meaning you want records returned in the mods version 3.3 schema. And
that's really the purpose
From: "Jonathan Rochkind"
There are all sorts of useful identifiers I use in my work every day that
can not be automatically dereferenced.
Even more to the point: there is no sound definition of "dereference". To
dereference a resource means to retrieve a representation of it. There has
ne
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> But shouldn't we be able to know the difference between an identifier and a
> locator? Isn't that the problem here? That you don't know which it is if it
> starts with http://.
But you do if it starts with http://dx.doi.org
I still don't see
But shouldn't we be able to know the difference between an identifier
and a locator? Isn't that the problem here? That you don't know which it
is if it starts with http://.
kc
Houghton,Andrew wrote:
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Ray Denenberg, Library
I completely disagree. There are all sorts of useful identifiers I use
in my work every day that can not be automatically dereferenced.
Jonathan
Ed Summers wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:
It wouldn't be good for much if you couldn't dereference it at all.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:
> It wouldn't be good for much if you couldn't dereference it at all.
I totally agree.
//Ed
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:58 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re:
> [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)
>
> I real
This lurker gives it a +1.
Edward M. Corrado wrote:
I disagree. Keep this going. A delete key is in easy reach and if you
have a mail reader that does threading you can easily ignore the
thread. I have been finding this discussion rather educational.
Edward
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Gle
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Mike Taylor
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:17 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
>
> Houghton,Andrew writes:
> > Again we have moved the discussion to a specific reso
From: "Houghton,Andrew"
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
philosophica
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jonathan Rochkind 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/httpr
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 wha
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:08 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB]
> registering info: uris?)
>
> Houghton,Andrew wrote:
> >
+1
Jon Stroop
Metadata Analyst
C-17-D2 Firestone Library
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544
Email: jstr...@princeton.edu
Phone: (609)258-0059
Fax: (609)258-0441
http://diglib.princeton.edu
http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead
Edward M. Corrado wrote:
I disagree. Keep this going. A delete k
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 HT
I disagree. Keep this going. A delete key is in easy reach and if you
have a mail reader that does threading you can easily ignore the
thread. I have been finding this discussion rather educational.
Edward
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Glen Newton - NRC/CNRC CISTI/ICIST
Research wrote:
> I co
Houghton,Andrew writes:
> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> > Mike Taylor
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:35 AM
> > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
> >
> > Houghton,Andrew writes:
> > > So cre
Houghton,Andrew writes:
> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> > Eric Hellman
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:51 AM
> > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
> >
> > There are actually a number of http U
I count 75 messages on this topic. Perhaps it is time to take this off
list? Someone give us a summary when/if this is resolved? Or start a
new list for this issue and tell us where it is?
thanks,
Glen
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Eric Hellman
> Sen
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Eric Hellman
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:51 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
>
> There are actually a number of http URLs that work like
> http://dx.doi.org/10.111
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Mike Taylor
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:35 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
>
> Houghton,Andrew writes:
> > So creating an info URI for it is meaningless, it's ju
I'll bite.
There are actually a number of http URLs that work like
http://dx.doi.org/10./j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x
One of them is http://doi.wiley.com/10./j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x
Another is run by crossref; Some OpenURL ink servers also have doi
proxy capability.
So for code to extrac
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 14:28 +0100, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
> 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 b
Houghton,Andrew writes:
> > The point is that (I argue) the identifier shouldn't tie itself
> > to a particular dereferencing mechanism (such as dx.doi.org, or
> > amazon.com) but should be dereferenced by software that knows
> > what's the most appropriate dereferencing mechanism _for you_ in
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Mike Taylor
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:17 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
>
> The point is that (I argue) the identifier shouldn't tie itself to a
> particular d
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 14:17 +0100, Mike Taylor wrote:
> Ed Summers writes:
> > Assuming a world where you cannot de-reference this DOI what is it
> > good for?
>
> It wouldn't be good for much if you couldn't dereference it at all.
> The point is that (I argue) the identifier shouldn't tie itsel
Ed Summers writes:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:
> > As usual, an ounce of example is worth a ton of exposition, so:
> >
> > Suppose I always keep a PDF of my latest paper at
> >http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/latest.pdf
> > for the benefit of people who want to k
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Mike Taylor
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:38 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
>
> Ross Singer writes:
> > I suppose my point is, there's a valid case for identifier
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:
> Worse, consider how the actionable-identifier approach would translate
> to other non-actionable identifiers like ISBNs. If I offer the
> non-actionable identifier
> info:isbn/025490
> which identified Farlow and Brett-Surman's edite
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:
> As usual, an ounce of example is worth a ton of exposition, so:
>
> Suppose I always keep a PDF of my latest paper at
> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/latest.pdf
> for the benefit of people who want to keep an eye on my research.
> (Hey, it
Ross Singer writes:
> I suppose my point is, there's a valid case for identifiers like
> your doi, I think we can agree on that (well, we don't have to
> agree, these identifiers will exist and continue to exist long
> after we've grown tired of flashing out gang signs). What I don't
> unders
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:
> will find at that location. Two different days, two different papers.
> Note that a single location (latest.pdf) contains at different times
> two different Things. And note that a single Thing (the older of the
Ok, Mike, thanks for getting
Ross Singer writes:
> > Identifiers identify; locations locate.
>
> I've been avoiding and ignoring this all day, because I wanted the
> thread to die and we all move on with our lives. But Kevin Clarke
> just quoted this on Twitter, and I felt I couldn't let this slide
> by.
>
> Locatio
50 matches
Mail list logo
