So hey, I'm nobody wanted to see this thread revived, but I'm hoping
you info uri folks can clear something up for me.
So I'm trying to gather together a vocabulary of identifiers to
unambiguously describe the format of the data you would be getting in
a Jangle feed or an UnAPI response (or any
From: Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
Except that OpenURL and SRU /already use different info URIs to
describe the same things/.
info:srw/schema/1/marcxml-v1.1
info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:MARC21
or
info:srw/schema/1/onix-v2.0
info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:onix
What is the rationale for this?
None.
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;
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
Hiya,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 01:10, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu 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
[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 while, but I've been
off to an alternative
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
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
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 23:34, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu 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
[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: [CODE4LIB]
registering info: uris?)
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 23:34, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
The difference between 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 rochk...@jhu.edu
The difference between URIs and URLs? I don't believe that URL is
something
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?)
Over in: http://www.w3.org/2001
] 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 understand why
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?)
Over in: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50-2006-08-
17.html
They suggest: URI opacity
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 00:20, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu 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
: [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 would be a
better place. But it's
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
Karen Coyle wrote:
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
, April 01, 2009 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB]
registering info: uris?)
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
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: uris?)
We do just
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?)
This really puzzles me, because I
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 have to say I am suspicious
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-unavailable
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 a
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
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
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?)
Houghton,Andrew wrote:
RFC 3986
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
At Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:47:50 +0100,
Mike Taylor wrote:
Erik Hetzner writes:
Without external knowledge that info:doi/10./xxx is a URI, I can
only guess.
Yes, that is true. The point is that by specifying that the rft_id
has to be a URI, you can then use other kinds of URI without
] 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
Message -
From: Houghton,Andrew hough...@oclc.org
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: 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
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
Rob Sanderson wrote:
info URIs, In My Opinion, are ideally suited for long term identifiers
of non information resources. But http URIs are definitely better than
something which isn't a URI at all.
Through this discussion I am clarifying my thoughts on this too. I feel
that info URIs are
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
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.
Unless
At Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:29:49 +0100,
Rob Sanderson wrote:
All I meant by that was that the info:doi/ URI is more informative as to
what the identifier actually is than just the doi by itself, which could
be any string. Equally, if I saw an SRW info URI like:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com 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
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com 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
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 identifiers like
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 itself to a
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
your
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
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 just
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./j
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 URLs that work
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
, 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./j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x
One of them is http://doi.wiley.com/10./j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x
Another is run
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 identification (was Re: [CODE4LIB]
registering info: uris?)
Houghton,Andrew wrote
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu 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:
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
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 resolution
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 m...@indexdata.com wrote:
It wouldn't be good for much if you couldn't
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net 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
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
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.
Ross Singer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net 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
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 http
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
r...@loc.gov 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
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 li...@kcoyle.net wrote:
Ross, I don't get your point. My point was about the confusion between two
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't
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com wrote:
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
At Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:56:42 -0400,
Ross Singer wrote:
So, in a what is probably a vain attempt to put this debate to rest, I
created a partial redirect PURL for sudoc:
http://purl.org/NET/sudoc/
If you pass it any urlencoded sudoc string, you'll be redirected to
the GPO's Aleph catalog
From: Erik Hetzner erik.hetz...@ucop.edu
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]
Leaving aside
Houghton,Andrew wrote:
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
I think this is a good point.
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
From: Erik Hetzner erik.hetz...@ucop.edu
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
So is there anything wrong with having both that http-based PURL URI
available, AND an info uri? Not only available, but in common use?
It gets complicated thinking about these things. There are potentially
several things wrong with it.
Jonathan
Ross Singer wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at
Jonathan Rochkind writes:
So is there anything wrong with having both that http-based PURL URI
available, AND an info uri? Not only available, but in common use?
Yes, of course! You don't want _two_ vocabularies of URIs for SUDOCs!
_/|_
There should be no issue with having both, mainly because like I
mentioned earlier, nobody cares about info:uris.
Take, for instance, DOIs. What do you see in the wild? Do you ever
see info:uris (except in OpenURLs)? If you don't see
http://dx.doi.org/ URIs you generally see doi:10... URIs.
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 16:08 +0100, Ross Singer wrote:
There should be no issue with having both, mainly because like I
mentioned earlier, nobody cares about info:uris.
s/nobody cares/the web doesn't care/
'The Web' isn't the only use case. There are plenty of reasons for
having non
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
r...@loc.gov wrote:
Nor do people outside of libraries care about identifiers.
Except, of course, for Tim Berners-Lee and anybody who listens to him:
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
-Ross.
From: Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
nobody gives a damn about info:uris outside of
libraries,
Nor do people outside of libraries care about identifiers.
--Ray
Ross Singer writes:
There should be no issue with having both, mainly because like I
mentioned earlier, nobody cares about info:uris.
Take, for instance, DOIs. What do you see in the wild? Do you ever
see info:uris (except in OpenURLs)? If you don't see
http://dx.doi.org/ URIs you
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Rob Sanderson azar...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:
If you want an identifier that *explicitly* cannot be dereferenced, then
info URIs are a good choice. If you want one that can be dereferenced
to some representation of the identified object, then HTTP is the only
Because the ability to de-reference seems to be the main reason to use
an HTTP URI as an identifier, and the main reason that some people
prefer an HTTP URI as an identifier to an info: URI.
Jonathan
Mike Taylor wrote:
Ross Singer writes:
There should be no issue with having both, mainly
Jonathan Rochkind writes:
Take, for instance, DOIs. What do you see in the wild? Do you ever
see info:uris (except in OpenURLs)? If you don't see
http://dx.doi.org/ URIs you generally see doi:10... URIs. It seems
like having http and info URIs would *have* to be fine, since
This is a long argument that's been going on in other communities for a
long time, Mike. I can see both sides.
Jonathan
Mike Taylor wrote:
Jonathan Rochkind writes:
Take, for instance, DOIs. What do you see in the wild? Do you ever
see info:uris (except in OpenURLs)? If you
Houghton,Andrew writes:
Take, for instance, DOIs. What do you see in the wild? Do
you ever see info:uris (except in OpenURLs)? If you don't see
http://dx.doi.org/ URIs you generally see doi:10... URIs. It
seems like having http and info URIs would *have* to be fine,
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 11:30 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
Ross Singer writes:
There should be no issue with having both, mainly because like I
mentioned earlier, nobody cares about info:uris.
Take, for instance, DOIs. What do you see
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Mike Taylor
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:15 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
The problem is that, after setting up a non-dereferencable http: URI
to name something
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:16 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
Some hints of the existing argument in other forums can be found in
this
post
At Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:12:39 -0400,
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
Leaving aside religious issues I just want to be sure we're clear on one
point: the work required for the info URI process is exactly the amount of
work required, no more no less. It forces you to specify clear
I agree with this as well. I guess it just depends on whether you
think this needs to be done prior to facitating the process to mint
URIs or after.
The advantage to the former is that it will actually get documented.
Speaking of, if anybody wants to help formalize this for the purl
method,
for these identifiers.
Jonathan
Houghton,Andrew wrote:
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:16 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
Some hints of the existing argument in other
On Mar 30, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
From: Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
nobody gives a damn about info:uris outside of
libraries,
Nor do people outside of libraries care about identifiers.
You might be surprised: http://www.lsrn.org/
-hilmar
At Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:58:04 -0400,
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
It's interesting that there are at least three, if not four, viewpoints
being represented in this conversation.
The first argument is over whether all identifiers should be resolvable
or not. While I respect the argument that
From: Hilmar Lapp hl...@duke.edu
Nor do people outside of libraries care about identifiers.
You might be surprised: http://www.lsrn.org/
yes, I overstated, let me rephrase. There are communities who are
interested in specific object classes and want identifier schemes for them.
For
Erik Hetzner wrote:
I don’t actually think that there is anybody who is arguing that all
identifiers must be resolvable. There are people who argue that there
are identifiers which must NOT be resolvable; at least in their basic
form. (see Stuart Weibel [1]).
There are indeed people
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:52 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
But when did someone suggest that all identifiers must be resolvable?
When Andrew
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:52 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
But when did someone suggest that all identifiers must be resolvable?
When Andrew argued that:
Having unresolvable URIs is anti-Web since the Web is a hypertext
system where links
At Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:52:10 -0400,
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Erik Hetzner wrote:
I don’t actually think that there is anybody who is arguing that all
identifiers must be resolvable. There are people who argue that there
are identifiers which must NOT be resolvable; at least in their
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
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
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.
-
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
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
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
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
: 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
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
