- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:14:32 +0100
- To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Cc: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi, On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net> wrote: > ... > There is a difference, since what is described could be an IR that > does not have the description as content. A prime example is any DOI, > e.g. > > http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000462 > > (try doing conneg for RDF). The identified resource is an IR as you > suggest, but the representation (after the 303 redirect) is not its > content. A couple of comments here: 1. Its not any DOI. I believe CrossRef are still the only registrar that support this, but I might have missed an announcement. That's still 50m DOIs though 2. Are you sure its an Information Resource? The DOI handbook [1] notes that while typically used to identify intellectual property a DOI can be used to identify anything. The CrossRef guidelines [2] explain that "[a]s a matter of current policy, the CrossRef DOI identifies the work, not its various potential manifestations...". Is a FRBR work an Information Resource? Personally I'd say not, but others may disagree. But as Dan Brickley has noted elsewhere in the discussion, there's other nuances to take into account. [1]. http://www.doi.org/handbook_2000/intro.html#1.6 [2]. http://crossref.org/02publishers/15doi_guidelines.html Cheers, L.
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:08 UTC