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

RE: DOI "fact sheet"

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:48:03 -0400
To: <n.paskin@tertius.ltd.uk>
Cc: "'David Booth'" <david@dbooth.org>, n.paskin@doi.org, "'www-tag'" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFC070825F.9A90203F-ON852575F6.005BF5B9-852575F6.005C4EE3@lotus.com>
Norman Paskin writes:

> We could certainly improve the factsheet to reference the RFC 
> 3986 position, and would welome your suggestions for doing so.

Speaking for myself as a TAG working group member (I.e. not as chair or 
representing the TAG as a whole):  I think that would be the appropriate 
next step.  I think that RFC 3986 makes significant strides in clarifying 
the use of the terms in question.  I think it would make sense for your 
document to summarize and/or refer to the definitions in 3986, and perhaps 
if it's helpful to your readership also point out that prior to 3986 there 
was indeed ambiguity and confusion in the use of these terms, but that the 
usage in 3986 is what is correct as of its publication as an RFC (if not 
before).

If it's helpful, I'm sure readers of www-tag and perhaps the TAG itself 
would be glad to review and comment on any such proposed revisions. Again, 
this is just my personal suggestion.

Noah

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








"Norman Paskin" <n.paskin@tertius.ltd.uk>
07/16/2009 04:53 AM
Please respond to n.paskin
 
        To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "'David Booth'" 
<david@dbooth.org>
        cc:     <n.paskin@doi.org>, "'www-tag'" <www-tag@w3.org>
        Subject:        RE: DOI "fact sheet"


It seems I was premature in my last mail - I received the full e mail with
DB's suggestion (for some reason I didn't receieve the first one from DB 
as
far as I can see).

Our fact sheet tries to be brief, and to address a number of issues, both
the URI/URN historic confusion but also the relationship to other (non 
web)
identifiers (eg ISBN) which are important to our community, such as
identifiers of non-digital abstractions. We've tried to represent the
understanding to those who are not close to IETF/W3C activities but are
users of identifiers, e.g. publishers, librarians, consumers.  We've found
that those communities do indeed use the terms URL and URN (far more so 
than
URI) and we still encounter a number of questions about eg URN resolvers 
in
libraries.  That was the primary focus of our factsheet for our members. 
We
are not attempting to represent the full detail of the techical
specifications, but would like to cite the consensus and certainly try to
avoid any misprepresentations.  We could certainly improve the factsheet 
to
reference the RFC 3986 position, and would welome your suggestions for 
doing
so.


Dr. Norman Paskin
Managing Agent
International DOI Foundation

Tel: (+44) 1865 559070
Mobile: (+44) 7710 327569
skype: npaskin
www.tertius.ltd.uk
www.linkedin.com/in/normanpaskin






-----Original Message-----
From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 15 July 2009 23:46
To: David Booth
Cc: n.paskin@doi.org; www-tag
Subject: Re: DOI "fact sheet"


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 Friday, 17 July 2009 16:48:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:15 GMT