Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Jonathan Rochkind writes: > There are trade-offs. I think a lot of that TAG stuff privileges > the theoretically pure over the on the ground practicalities. > They've got a great fantasy in their heads of what the semantic web > _could_ be, and I agree it's theoretically sound and _could_ be;

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Hiya, On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 01:10, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > It stands in the way of using them in the fully realized sem web vision. Ok, I'm puzzled. How? As the SemWeb vision is all about first-order logic over triplets, and the triplets are defined as URIs, if you can pop something into a

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Alexander Johannesen wrote: I think you are quite mistaken on this, but before we leap into wheter the web is suitable for SuDoc I'd rather point out that SuDoc isn't web friendly in itself, and *that* more than anything stands in the way of using them with the web. It stands in the way of usin

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 00:20, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > Can you show me where this definition of a "URL" vs. a "URI" is made in any > RFC or standard-like document? >From http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3986.html ; 1.1.3. URI, URL, and URN A URI can be further classified as a locator, a name

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of >>> Jonathan Rochkind >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:21 AM >>> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: >>>

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?) Over in: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50-2006-08- 17.html They suggest: "URI opacity'Agents making use of URIs SHOULD NOT attempt to infer properties of the referenced resource.'" I

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of > Jonathan Rochkind > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:21 AM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: > [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?) > >

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Thanks Ray. By that definition ALL http URIs are URLs, a priori. I read Alexander as trying to make a different distinction. Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: From: "Jonathan Rochkind" The difference between URIs and URLs? I don't believe that "URL" is something that exists any

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

W. Jonathan From: Code for Libraries [code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Johannesen [alexander.johanne...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:48 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 23:34, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > The difference between URIs and URLs?  I don't believe that "URL" is > something that exists any more in any standard, it's all URIs. Correct me if > I'm wrong. Sure it exists: URLs are a subset of URIs. URLs are locators as opposed to "

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

From: "Jonathan Rochkind" The difference between URIs and URLs? I don't believe that "URL" is something that exists any more in any standard, it's all URIs. The URL is alive and well. The W3C "definition", http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/ "a URL is a type of URI that identifies a re

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Johannesen [alexander.johanne...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:27 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?) Hiya, Been meaning to jump into this discussion for a wh

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Hiya, Been meaning to jump into this discussion for a while, but I've been off to an alternative universe and I can't even say it's good to be back. :) Anwhoo ... On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 03:48, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: > You're right, if there were a "web:"  URI scheme, the world

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

STSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?) An account that has a depressing ring of accuracy to it. Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes: > You're right, if there were a "web:" URI scheme, the world woul

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Hi Ray - At Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:48:19 -0400, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: > > You're right, if there were a "web:" URI scheme, the world would be a > better place. But it's not, and the world is worse off for it. Well, the original concept of the ‘web’ was, as I understand it, to

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

; > Instead, they should have bit the bullet and coined a new scheme. They > didn't, and that's why we're in the mess we're in. > > --Ray > > > ----- Original Message - > From: "Houghton,Andrew" > To: > Sent:

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

nt: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?) From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:26 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU S

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Houghton,Andrew writes: > > > RFC 3986 (URI generic syntax) says that "http:" is a URI scheme > > > not a protocol. Just because it says "http" people make all > > > kinds of assumptions about type of use, persistence, > > > resolvability, etc. > > > > And RFC 2616 (Hypertext transfer proto

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Uh, before this gets completely out of hand, UC is still running a PURL server, see for example: Roy On 4/2/09 4/2/09 € 8:07 AM, "Mike Taylor" wrote: > Karen Coyle writes: >>> OK, good, then if you are concerned

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Mike Taylor wrote: Wait, what? They _were_ running a PURL resolver, but now they're not? What does the P in PURL stand for again? Which, Mike, is why I'd rather have a single point of failure at purl.org, an organization which understands it's persistence mission and is likely to be suppo

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Karen Coyle writes: > > OK, good, then if you are concerned about the PURL services SPOF, > > take the freely available PURL software and created a distributed > > PURL based system and put it up for the community. I think > > several people have looked at this, but I have not heard of any >

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of > Karen Coyle > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 10:15 AM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: > [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?) > &g

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Houghton,Andrew wrote: OK, good, then if you are concerned about the PURL services SPOF, take the freely available PURL software and created a distributed PURL based system and put it up for the community. I think several people have looked at this, but I have not heard of any progress or im

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Houghton,Andrew writes: > > > > I have to say I am suspicious of schemes like PURL, which > > > > for all their good points introduce a single point of > > > > failure into, well, everything that uses them. That can't > > > > be good. Especially as it's run by the same compary that > >

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Houghton,Andrew wrote: RFC 3986 (URI generic syntax) says that "http:" is a URI scheme not a protocol. Just because it says "http" people make all kinds of assumptions about type of use, persistence, resolvability, etc. And RFC 2616 (Hypertext transfer protocol) says: "The HTTP protocol is

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of > Mike Taylor > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 10:07 AM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: > [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?) > >

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Houghton,Andrew writes: > > I have to say I am suspicious of schemes like PURL, which for all > > their good points introduce a single point of failure into, well, > > everything that uses them. That can't be good. Especially as > > it's run by the same compary that also runs the often-unavai

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of > Mike Taylor > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:41 AM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: > [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?) > > I hav

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of > Karen Coyle > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:26 PM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: > [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?) > >

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of > Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:38 PM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: > [CODE4LIB] registering in

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

Ross Singer writes: > 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

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of > Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:59 PM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: > [CODE4LIB] registering info:

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

This really puzzles me, because I thought http referred to a protocol: hypertext transfer protocol. And when you put "http://"; in front of something you are indicating that you are sending the following string along to be processed by that protocol. It implies a certain application over the we

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

identifiers. --Ray ----- Original Message - From: "Houghton,Andrew" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?) From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

From: "Houghton,Andrew" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:21 PM > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] > registering info: uris?) > > >>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of >>&g

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

ion and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?) 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] registe

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

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

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

> 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?) > > T

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

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

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

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

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

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

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

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

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

f 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 realize this is pretty much a dead-end debate as everyone has dug themselves into a position and

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

> 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 i

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

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

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

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

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

w all of the possible templates (with more being created all the time)? Jonathan 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 To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: [CODE4LIB] resolution and

Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

> 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?) > &g

[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 HT