- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:04:37 +0100
- To: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
- CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On 03/04/2012 15:53, John Erickson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM, David Booth<david@dbooth.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 14:33 +0100, Phil Archer wrote: >>> [ . . . ] The actual URI for it is >>> http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=36266 >>> (or rather, that's the page about the spec but that's a side issue for >>> now). >>> >>> That URI is just horrible and certainly not a 'cool URI'. The Eurostat >>> one is no better. >>> >>> Does the datatype URI have to resolve to anything (in theory no, but in >>> practice? Would a URN be appropriate? >> >> It's helpful to be able to click on the URI to figure out what exactly >> was meant. How about just using a URI shortener, such as tinyurl.com or >> bit.ly? > > David's good point raises an even bigger point: why isn't ISO minting > DOI's for specs? What shall we do? Start a petition? Go on a march through Geneva? (it's nice there this time of year). > > Or, at least, why can't ISO manage a DOI-equivalent space that would > rein-in bogusly-long URIs, make them more manageable, and perhaps more > functional e.g. CrossRef's Linked Data-savvy DOI proxy > <http://bit.ly/HcStYl> Yep, that would do the job certainly. Hmmm... unless Crossref could mint URIs out of, say, ISO/IEC 5218:2004 ?? I'm sure it could but is the demand sufficient and would ISO allow it? > > -- Phil Archer W3C eGovernment http://www.w3.org/egov/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 15:05:12 UTC