W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2009

Re: DOI "fact sheet"

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:45:40 -0400
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: n.paskin@doi.org, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF0F425CFF.2C4F7CF5-ON852575F4.007C8DB5-852575F4.007CA166@lotus.com>
David Booth writes:

> The current URI specification, RFC 3986
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
> in section 1.1.3 clearly explains the relationship.
> 
> It would be good to get the DOI "fact sheet" updated to properly reflect
> this.

Anyone on the TAG want to step up to take this on?  Thanks.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
07/13/2009 05:59 PM
 
        To:     n.paskin@doi.org
        cc:     www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah 
Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        DOI "fact sheet"


Dr. Paskin,

As noted here
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jul/0093.html
I find the "fact sheet" on the doi.org web site at
http://www.doi.org/factsheets/DOIIdentifierSpecs.html
currently somewhat misleading.  I realize that there was confusion about
URIs, URNs and URLs back around 2000 or 2002 when some of the earlier
discussions took place, but this confusion has since been worked out.
The current URI specification, RFC 3986
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
in section 1.1.3 clearly explains the relationship.

It would be good to get the DOI "fact sheet" updated to properly reflect
this.

Thanks

-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 22:44:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:14 GMT