[CODE4LIB] FW: Please visit RDA Test Website
Posted on behalf of Dianne McCutcheon * Terry Reese The Gray Family Chair for Innovative Library Services Oregon State University Libraries Corvallis, OR 97331 tel: 541-737-6384 email: terry.re...@oregonstate.edu http: http://oregonstate.edu/~reeset * * The US National Libraries RDA Test Steering Committee has launched a Website for the RDA test project, at URL http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/ http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/%20 The site includes a link to a fill-in PDF application form that you can use to let us know if you're interested in being selected as a test partner. The Test Steering Committee received excellent comments about the project after the RDA Test Planning Forum at ALA Midwinter in Denver. As a result of this feedback, we realized that we needed to ask for more precise information from the potential test participants. So we revised the application form and made it available on the RDA Test Planning Website. Please complete and return the form, even if you submitted an expression of interest earlier. The Website also has links to a proposed timeline and to the methodology that the Steering Committee plans to use for the testing. We'll update the site with additional information as we develop a complete test protocol. Thank you very much for your interest in the US National Libraries RDA Test project. We look forward to hearing from you. As the application form states, we're requesting that anyone interested in participating as a test partner return the PDF application, via email, by April 13 to Susan Morris. The email link in the form will return it to Susan. Please get in touch with her if you have any questions or if there is any problem with the PDF. Susan R. Morris Special Assistant to the Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Library of Congress voice: 202-707-6073 fax: 202-252-3220 For the US National Libraries RDA Test Steering Committee: co-chairs Chris Cole, Dianne McCutcheon, and Beacher Wiggins
[CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
Does anyone know the process for registering a sub-scheme for info: uris? I'd like to have one for SuDoc classification numbers, info:sudoc/. I'm not sure if I can register that on my own, without working with the US Government Printing Office, who actually maintains sudocs. But if I have to get GPO to do it, I'll probably give up quicker (unless it turns out easier than I thought to find the right person at GPO and get them to sign on -- I doubt it!). Or if the registration process is really long and onerous. But if it's easy enough to just fill out a form and get info:sudoc registered, I'd rather it be legal than use things that look like an info uri but really aren't a legally registered sub-scheme. Anyone know? Jonathan
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
Thanks Ray. Oh boy, I don't know enough about SuDoc to describe the syntax rules fully. I can spend some more time with the SuDoc documentation (written for a pre-computer era) and try to figure it out, or do the best I can. I mean, the info registration can clearly point to the existing SuDoc documentation and say one of these -- but actually describing the syntax formally may or may not be possible/easy/possible-for-me-personally. I can't even tell if normalization would be required or not. I don't think so. I think SuDocs don't suffer from that problem LCCNs did to require normalization, I think they already have consistent form, but I'm not certain. I'll see what I can do with it. But Ray, you work for 'the government'. Do you have a relationship with a counter-part at GPO that might be interested in getting involved with this? Jonathan Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: It's a fairly straightforward process, See: http://info-uri.info/registry/register.html You should look at a few examples first, go to http://info-uri.info/registry/ and click on a few of those listed in the left column. I think registering one for SuDocs would be fairly easy. The info folks are most concerned that the syntax rules are well-described. I had registered a few of these before they started cracking the whip on that (and rightly so), and when I registered info:lc it became more difficult; you might want to look at that for an example: http://info-uri.info/registry/OAIHandler?verb=GetRecordmetadataPrefix=regidentifier=info:lc/ Also, normalization - I suggested looking at info:lccn normalization rules: http://info-uri.info/registry/OAIHandler?verb=GetRecordmetadataPrefix=regidentifier=info:lccn/ --Ray - Original Message - From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:12 PM Subject: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? Does anyone know the process for registering a sub-scheme for info: uris? I'd like to have one for SuDoc classification numbers, info:sudoc/. I'm not sure if I can register that on my own, without working with the US Government Printing Office, who actually maintains sudocs. But if I have to get GPO to do it, I'll probably give up quicker (unless it turns out easier than I thought to find the right person at GPO and get them to sign on -- I doubt it!). Or if the registration process is really long and onerous. But if it's easy enough to just fill out a form and get info:sudoc registered, I'd rather it be legal than use things that look like an info uri but really aren't a legally registered sub-scheme. Anyone know? Jonathan
[CODE4LIB] XC's OAI Toolkit on Google Code
Hello Good Afternoon!! The eXtensible Catalog (XC) OAI Toolkit repository is now available to the public for download at http://code.google.com/p/xcoaitoolkit. This project page, hosted by Google Code, is home to all the up-to-date information about the OAI Toolkit, it's downloads, documentation, bug reports, feature requests, most updated under-development code etc. of the XC OAI Toolkit. You will just need a Google account to access the project's code, bug tracking system and other features. The OAI Toolkit is used to make data stored in an institution's ILS or other repository available for harvesting via OAI-PMH, including other eXtensible Catalog applications. For an ILS, this is accomplished by exporting ILS metadata, converting it from MARC to MARCXML, and loading it into an OAI-PMH compliant repository. The repository (embedded in the OAI Toolkit) makes the data available for harvesting by other XC components. The OAI Toolkit can be used as part of the XC system, or on its own to enable OAI-PMH harvestability of an existing repository. It is a server application written in Java and is only needed for ILS's and other repositories that do not already have the ability to be act as OAI-PMH Repositories (OAI Servers). Documentation for the OAI Toolkit can be found at the links below: * OAI Toolkit Manual: http://xcoaitoolkit.googlecode.com/files/OAIToolkitManual_v25.pdf * Release Notes: http://xcoaitoolkit.googlecode.com/files/OAIToolkitReleaseNotes_v9.pdf You can download the OAI importer and OAI server zip files from the Downloads tab at http://code.google.com/p/xcoaitoolkit/downloads/list. The OAI Toolkit Manual would be a good help in installing the OAI Toolkit and then you would be ready to run the OAI Toolkit. The software code repository for the OAI Toolkit could be checked out from SVN at https://xcoaitoolkit.googlecode.com/svn/tags https://xcoaitoolkit.googlecode.com/svn/tags . OAI Toolkit is in a good stable condition at the moment, but still it is under development solving the bug fixes and catering to the feature requests to make it more efficient and stable. The Google bug tracking system of the OAI Toolkit currently contains the outstanding bugs and the feature requests (http://code.google.com/p/xcoaitoolkit/issues/list). If you have any suggestions, feature requests, or bugs reports we invite you to submit them to the Google bug tracker system. For those interested in up-to the minute development, you could checkout the most current OAI Toolkit code under development from SVN at https://xcoaitoolkit.googlecode.com/svn/trunk https://xcoaitoolkit.googlecode.com/svn/trunk . More information about downloading the Google code and SVN, you can go under the Source tab at http://code.google.com/p/xcoaitoolkit/source/checkout I am one of the developers working on the OAI Toolkit in the eXtensible Catalog(XC) project. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Thanks and regards Shrey Vakil Software Developer eXtensible Catalog Project University of Rochester (585) 273-1979 sva...@library.rochester.edu
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
Pointing to the documentation and saying one of these isn't going to work, I'm afraid. Most important is to make sure that the syntax is consistent with URI syntax. Where the syntax of the identifier you're representing is potentially at odds with URI syntax, you might have to make adjustments, like percent-encode. So if you're going to register sudoc, you're going to have to understand the syntax to some degree, there's really no way around it. (I didn't know the lccn syntax, registering it forced me to learn it, and I'm a better man for it.) I don't know much about SuDoc, and most everything seems to point to http://www.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/explain.html which doesn't really explain their syntax. (Though if you look a bit harder maybe you'll find something better.) But I see this example:Y 3.C 76/3:2 K 54 That's apparently a sudoc. It immediately raises the following flags: spaces, slash, colon, and case (sensitivity).For your purposes I don't think that colon or slash is a problem. (They become a problem when you are using them as special characters for delimitation, but you're not doing that.) Spaces, though, have to be percent encoded. (That simply means replace each occurence of a space with %20.) You also need to look at case-sensitivity. If sudocs are case-sensitive, no problem, if not, then you may want to normalize to either upper or lower case. There may not be any normalization issues (other than case sensitivity, if that). Normalization is an issue only if a particular sudoc can be represented by more than one string. If so you have two choices: 1. prescribe a canonical form (which is the approach we took for LCCNs). 2. simply describe the rules for determining when two strings represent the same sudoc (there is no rule that says that two different info URIs can't refer to the same resource). You can contact me privately if you have problems. No, sorry, I don't know anyone at GPO. I worked the graveyard shift there part time during college. (I had to load mailing machines with junk mail. Several junk items loaded into a machine which would combine them into one mailing item. The machine would jam about every tenth time. Worst job I ever had.) But that was many years ago and that's the last contact I've had with GPO. Good luck. -Ray - Original Message - From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:36 PM Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? Thanks Ray. Oh boy, I don't know enough about SuDoc to describe the syntax rules fully. I can spend some more time with the SuDoc documentation (written for a pre-computer era) and try to figure it out, or do the best I can. I mean, the info registration can clearly point to the existing SuDoc documentation and say one of these -- but actually describing the syntax formally may or may not be possible/easy/possible-for-me-personally. I can't even tell if normalization would be required or not. I don't think so. I think SuDocs don't suffer from that problem LCCNs did to require normalization, I think they already have consistent form, but I'm not certain. I'll see what I can do with it. But Ray, you work for 'the government'. Do you have a relationship with a counter-part at GPO that might be interested in getting involved with this? Jonathan Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: It's a fairly straightforward process, See: http://info-uri.info/registry/register.html You should look at a few examples first, go to http://info-uri.info/registry/ and click on a few of those listed in the left column. I think registering one for SuDocs would be fairly easy. The info folks are most concerned that the syntax rules are well-described. I had registered a few of these before they started cracking the whip on that (and rightly so), and when I registered info:lc it became more difficult; you might want to look at that for an example: http://info-uri.info/registry/OAIHandler?verb=GetRecordmetadataPrefix=regidentifier=info:lc/ Also, normalization - I suggested looking at info:lccn normalization rules: http://info-uri.info/registry/OAIHandler?verb=GetRecordmetadataPrefix=regidentifier=info:lccn/ --Ray - Original Message - From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:12 PM Subject: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? Does anyone know the process for registering a sub-scheme for info: uris? I'd like to have one for SuDoc classification numbers, info:sudoc/. I'm not sure if I can register that on my own, without working with the US Government Printing Office, who actually maintains sudocs. But if I have to get GPO to do it, I'll probably give up quicker (unless it turns out easier than I thought to find the right person at GPO and get them to sign on -- I doubt it!). Or if the registration process is really long
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
At Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:36:43 -0400, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: Thanks Ray. Oh boy, I don't know enough about SuDoc to describe the syntax rules fully. I can spend some more time with the SuDoc documentation (written for a pre-computer era) and try to figure it out, or do the best I can. I mean, the info registration can clearly point to the existing SuDoc documentation and say one of these -- but actually describing the syntax formally may or may not be possible/easy/possible-for-me-personally. I can't even tell if normalization would be required or not. I don't think so. I think SuDocs don't suffer from that problem LCCNs did to require normalization, I think they already have consistent form, but I'm not certain. I'll see what I can do with it. But Ray, you work for 'the government'. Do you have a relationship with a counter-part at GPO that might be interested in getting involved with this? Hi Jonathan - Obviously I don’t know your requirements, but I’d like to suggest that before going down the info: URI road, you read the W3C Technical Architecture Group’s finding ‘URNs, Namespaces and Registries’ [1]. | Abstract | This finding addresses the questions When should URNs or URIs with | novel URI schemes be used to name information resources for the | Web? and Should registries be provided for such identifiers?. The | answers given are Rarely if ever and Probably not. Common | arguments in favor of such novel naming schemas are examined, and | their properties compared with those of the existing http: URI | scheme. | Three case studies are then presented, illustrating how the http: | URI scheme can be used to achieve many of the stated requirements | for new URI schemes. best, Erik Hetzner 1. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50 ;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library ;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3 pgpvBsZoxJDPh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
Yeah, I thought of the URI encoding issue, that's easy enough to deal with, makes sense. I have no idea how to tell if SuDocs are case sensitive or not. But they ARE all assigned by the GPO, and look-up-able in the GPO catalog. Yeah, they have to be URL encoded, certainly, but can't we just say must be a valid SuDoc class (including book number) assigned by the GPO, but [url encode it]. This can't be the only use case for essentially arbitrary strings assigned by a third party controlling authority, that you want to make into an info: uri, right? But maybe I'll try doing the best I can, with or without GPO assistance (Ed Summers said he thought he might know somebody at GPO interested in identifiers), and maybe run it by you? If this ends up being a huge time sink -- I'm probably going to give up, and just use my own illegal info:sudoc identifiers that aren't really registered at all, which would be bad, but I need a sudoc URI and don't have a huge amount of time to sink into doing it 'right'. Believe me, I have already spent quite a bit of time with that document you reference. It was written for an earlier era, clearly. Jonathan Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: Pointing to the documentation and saying one of these isn't going to work, I'm afraid. Most important is to make sure that the syntax is consistent with URI syntax. Where the syntax of the identifier you're representing is potentially at odds with URI syntax, you might have to make adjustments, like percent-encode. So if you're going to register sudoc, you're going to have to understand the syntax to some degree, there's really no way around it. (I didn't know the lccn syntax, registering it forced me to learn it, and I'm a better man for it.) I don't know much about SuDoc, and most everything seems to point to http://www.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/explain.html which doesn't really explain their syntax. (Though if you look a bit harder maybe you'll find something better.) But I see this example:Y 3.C 76/3:2 K 54 That's apparently a sudoc. It immediately raises the following flags: spaces, slash, colon, and case (sensitivity).For your purposes I don't think that colon or slash is a problem. (They become a problem when you are using them as special characters for delimitation, but you're not doing that.) Spaces, though, have to be percent encoded. (That simply means replace each occurence of a space with %20.) You also need to look at case-sensitivity. If sudocs are case-sensitive, no problem, if not, then you may want to normalize to either upper or lower case. There may not be any normalization issues (other than case sensitivity, if that). Normalization is an issue only if a particular sudoc can be represented by more than one string. If so you have two choices: 1. prescribe a canonical form (which is the approach we took for LCCNs). 2. simply describe the rules for determining when two strings represent the same sudoc (there is no rule that says that two different info URIs can't refer to the same resource). You can contact me privately if you have problems. No, sorry, I don't know anyone at GPO. I worked the graveyard shift there part time during college. (I had to load mailing machines with junk mail. Several junk items loaded into a machine which would combine them into one mailing item. The machine would jam about every tenth time. Worst job I ever had.) But that was many years ago and that's the last contact I've had with GPO. Good luck. -Ray - Original Message - From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:36 PM Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? Thanks Ray. Oh boy, I don't know enough about SuDoc to describe the syntax rules fully. I can spend some more time with the SuDoc documentation (written for a pre-computer era) and try to figure it out, or do the best I can. I mean, the info registration can clearly point to the existing SuDoc documentation and say one of these -- but actually describing the syntax formally may or may not be possible/easy/possible-for-me-personally. I can't even tell if normalization would be required or not. I don't think so. I think SuDocs don't suffer from that problem LCCNs did to require normalization, I think they already have consistent form, but I'm not certain. I'll see what I can do with it. But Ray, you work for 'the government'. Do you have a relationship with a counter-part at GPO that might be interested in getting involved with this? Jonathan Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: It's a fairly straightforward process, See: http://info-uri.info/registry/register.html You should look at a few examples first, go to http://info-uri.info/registry/ and click on a few of those listed in the left column. I think registering one for SuDocs would be fairly easy. The info folks are most
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
I am looking for the easiest possible way to get a legal URI representing a sudoc. My understanding, after looking at this stuff previously, is that info: is a LOT lower barrier than urn:, and that's part of it's purpose. Before Ed or someone else mentions http, to me, using http: URIs would only make sense if the GPO were actually interested in supporting such in a persistent way. I don't really want to have to go down that road just to get a legal URI for a sudoc, but if someone else does, please feel free. :) Jonathan Erik Hetzner wrote: At Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:36:43 -0400, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: Thanks Ray. Oh boy, I don't know enough about SuDoc to describe the syntax rules fully. I can spend some more time with the SuDoc documentation (written for a pre-computer era) and try to figure it out, or do the best I can. I mean, the info registration can clearly point to the existing SuDoc documentation and say one of these -- but actually describing the syntax formally may or may not be possible/easy/possible-for-me-personally. I can't even tell if normalization would be required or not. I don't think so. I think SuDocs don't suffer from that problem LCCNs did to require normalization, I think they already have consistent form, but I'm not certain. I'll see what I can do with it. But Ray, you work for 'the government'. Do you have a relationship with a counter-part at GPO that might be interested in getting involved with this? Hi Jonathan - Obviously I don’t know your requirements, but I’d like to suggest that before going down the info: URI road, you read the W3C Technical Architecture Group’s finding ‘URNs, Namespaces and Registries’ [1]. | Abstract | This finding addresses the questions When should URNs or URIs with | novel URI schemes be used to name information resources for the | Web? and Should registries be provided for such identifiers?. The | answers given are Rarely if ever and Probably not. Common | arguments in favor of such novel naming schemas are examined, and | their properties compared with those of the existing http: URI | scheme. | Three case studies are then presented, illustrating how the http: | URI scheme can be used to achieve many of the stated requirements | for new URI schemes. best, Erik Hetzner 1. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50 ;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library ;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
True, good point. I am looking for something a _bit_ more shareable between other software and institutions than tag. info: still seems a nice compromise to me. Houghton,Andrew wrote: From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:42 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? I am looking for the easiest possible way to get a legal URI representing a sudoc. My understanding, after looking at this stuff previously, is that info: is a LOT lower barrier than urn:, and that's part of it's purpose. Jonathan you could use TAG URI's, RFC 4151, if you are looking for something quick and dirty. No need to register with any authority since you are using your own DNS name. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4151 Andy.
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
Aha, cool! Yeah, I could use tag for this, but it wouldn't seem appropriate for something I want to encourage others to use compatibly as well, info seems better. Houghton,Andrew wrote: From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:52 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? Also, the date aspect of a tag-uri seems to make it hard to use to mint an identifier that will always represent the same SuDoc, regardless of when it was minted. No the date part is a versioning scheme, not the date you created the tag URI. It's used, for example, where I created a specific tag scheme one day and then decided to create another tag scheme some other day: tag:example.org,1999:date/yy-mm-dd where yy-mm-dd is the year, month and day values. Then I realize that it's Y2K so I create a new tag scheme: tag:example.org,2000:date/-mm-dd Andy.
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:00 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? Aha, cool! Yeah, I could use tag for this, but it wouldn't seem appropriate for something I want to encourage others to use compatibly as well, info seems better. Not to push tag URIs on you, just providing some information, but if you are working with other organizations, you could just go to GoDaddy and get a domain name for your project, then use an email address instead of ND.EDU: tag:project-n...@my-tags.org,2009:id/sudoc-value Andy.
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:28 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? Another good idea, true. There are indeed lots of ways to do this. But wait, you don't need a unique hostname for a tag uri, a unique uri (hostname+path) will do? purl.org will only give me the latter, not the former, right? Tag URIs require that the authorizing agency own the domain name and they cannot specify a date that is before their domain registration or in the future. So nobody could mint Tag URIs with purl.org as the domain name. PURLs might be an interesting solution for you if GAO has a system where you can resolve SUDOC identifiers. Then you could create a PURL and point it to their system. Now you get to use your PURL for your project and as a side benefit get lookup capabilities from GAO! Otherwise you could just send them to a relevant page on GAO site. Andy.
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the point of all this to be able to put the URI in an OpenURL? And info was invented (in part) to avoid putting http URIs in OpenURLs (because they are complicated enough already, why clutter them further). So I don't see that pursuing an http solution to this is very useful. --Ray - Original Message - From: Houghton,Andrew hough...@oclc.org To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:18 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? I am not interested in maintaining a sudoc.info registration, and neither is my institution, who I wouldn't trust to maintain it (even to the extent of not letting the DNS registration expire) after I left. BTW, you could always use http://purl.org/ and later if you wanted to have it resolve to something just change the PURL.
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:38 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the point of all this to be able to put the URI in an OpenURL? And info was invented (in part) to avoid putting http URIs in OpenURLs (because they are complicated enough already, why clutter them further). So I don't see that pursuing an http solution to this is very useful. --Ray Ray, I don't quite understand the to avoid putting http URIs in OpenURLs part. An info URI as well as an HTTP URI use the same encoding rules from RFC 3986, URI Generic Syntax. So neither has an advantage over the other. If you have a %80%CC in your info URI or HTTP URI then sticking it in an OpenURL will require it to become %2580%25CC. So what am I missing about your statement? Andy.
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
At Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:18:24 -0400, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: I am not interested in maintaining a sudoc.info registration, and neither is my institution, who I wouldn't trust to maintain it (even to the extent of not letting the DNS registration expire) after I left. I think even something as simple as this really needs to be committed to by an organization. So yeah, even willing to take on the responsibility of owning that domain until such time as something useful can be done with it, I do not have, and to me that seems like a requirement, not just a nice to have. I see your point. I believe that registering a domain would be less work than going through an info URI registration process, but I don’t know how difficult the info URI registration process would be (thus bringing the conversation full circle). [1] But it certainly is another option. I feel like most people have the _expectation_ of http resolvability for http URIs though, even though it isn't actually required. If you want there to be an actual http server there at ALL, even one that just responds to all requests with a link to the SuDoc documentation, that's another thing you need. I think there is a strong expectation that if I resolve a URI, I do not end up with a domain squatter. Otherwise I am not so sure what is expected when using an HTTP URI whose primary purpose is identification, not dereferencing. Personally I would be happy to get either a page telling me to check back later [2], or nothing at all. best, Erik Hetzner 1. My last word on this. Because I am already beating a dead horse, I have put it in a footnote. For $100 and basically no time at all you can have 10 years of sudoc.info. If it takes an organization more than 2 or 3 hours of work to register an info: URI, then domain registration is a better deal, as I see it. 2. http://lccn.info/2002022641 ;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library ;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3 pgpLGEdroPmog.pgp Description: Digital Signature
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
I've got nothing against putting http uris in OpenURLs myself. I don't understand the objection to that, really. Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the point of all this to be able to put the URI in an OpenURL? And info was invented (in part) to avoid putting http URIs in OpenURLs (because they are complicated enough already, why clutter them further). So I don't see that pursuing an http solution to this is very useful. --Ray - Original Message - From: Houghton,Andrew hough...@oclc.org To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:18 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? I am not interested in maintaining a sudoc.info registration, and neither is my institution, who I wouldn't trust to maintain it (even to the extent of not letting the DNS registration expire) after I left. BTW, you could always use http://purl.org/ and later if you wanted to have it resolve to something just change the PURL.
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
I definitely see your point. But I can't count on my _organization_ to maintain any of this stuff _at all_ after I leave. My organization is not in that business. I suppose I could lay down the money for 100 years of a hostname registration myself right now, as a donation to the community, and call it a day, and leave it to someone else to figure out in 100 years. :) Jonathan Erik Hetzner wrote: At Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:18:24 -0400, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: I am not interested in maintaining a sudoc.info registration, and neither is my institution, who I wouldn't trust to maintain it (even to the extent of not letting the DNS registration expire) after I left. I think even something as simple as this really needs to be committed to by an organization. So yeah, even willing to take on the responsibility of owning that domain until such time as something useful can be done with it, I do not have, and to me that seems like a requirement, not just a nice to have. I see your point. I believe that registering a domain would be less work than going through an info URI registration process, but I don’t know how difficult the info URI registration process would be (thus bringing the conversation full circle). [1] But it certainly is another option. I feel like most people have the _expectation_ of http resolvability for http URIs though, even though it isn't actually required. If you want there to be an actual http server there at ALL, even one that just responds to all requests with a link to the SuDoc documentation, that's another thing you need. I think there is a strong expectation that if I resolve a URI, I do not end up with a domain squatter. Otherwise I am not so sure what is expected when using an HTTP URI whose primary purpose is identification, not dereferencing. Personally I would be happy to get either a page telling me to check back later [2], or nothing at all. best, Erik Hetzner 1. My last word on this. Because I am already beating a dead horse, I have put it in a footnote. For $100 and basically no time at all you can have 10 years of sudoc.info. If it takes an organization more than 2 or 3 hours of work to register an info: URI, then domain registration is a better deal, as I see it. 2. http://lccn.info/2002022641 ;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library ;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3
Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 6:09 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris? If GPO had a system where I could resolve Sudoc identifiers, then this whole problem would be solved right there, I wouldn't need to go any further, I'd just use the http URI's associated with that system as identifiers! This whole problem statement is because GPO does not provide any persistent URIs for sudoc's in the first place, right? With a little Googling how about this: sudoc: E 2.11/3:EL 2 http://catalog.gpo.gov/F/FIBJ8T23DNC33L6KEDYR7Q8Q3MF6BI9H7Q5XPG4KB3N57HX35X-17544?func=scanscan_code=SUDscan_start=E+2.11%2F3%3AEL+2 looks like the param scan_start= holds the sudoc number. Sure it gives you other results, but its might work for your purposes. Seems like they are creating bad HTTP responses since Fiddler throws an protocol violation because they do not end the HTTP headers with CR,LF,CR,LF and instead use LF,LF... Andy.
