W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > November 2016

Re: DOIs in practice

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:21:21 -0800
Message-ID: <CABevsUEuV_mKLsWui4jnbCPvAKMVnPqbvMts3-o9Y-sSxofUpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Wood <david.wood@ephox.com>
Cc: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
I agree completely.  DOIs are just a short URL service.  It would be
exactly the same as requiring everyone to use bit.ly links.

Rob

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:16 PM, David Wood <david.wood@ephox.com> wrote:

> I, for one, would be deeply unhappy about embedding Crossref's service as
> a mandatory component.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> David Wood
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:16 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <
> rse@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>
>> SInce we're talking about DOIs...
>>
>> I am struggling right now with Crossref's display rule changes (
>> http://blog.crossref.org/2016/09/new-crossref-doi-display-guidelines.html);
>> my steering committee has _serious_ reservations about forcing people
>> through a single gateway to get to documents. What we do now is have the
>> DOI in a urn format, and additionally a URL with the actual target for our
>> documents. If we switch that to just the one URI that goes through
>> Crossref, then what's to protect people from being tracked as they go
>> through Crossref's servers? In countries like Turkey and China, if the
>> government demands access to the logs to see who is accessing what
>> material, Crossref would have to comply. Since we have documents that
>> enable people to rebuild the Internet (and they did, back when Egypt shut
>> down access to the Internet a few years ago), it's actually a reasonable
>> concern.
>>
>> Has this come up in any conversations you all know about?
>>
>> -Heather
>>
>>
>> On 11/8/16 8:10 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>
>> And a related one:
>>
>> http://blog.crossref.org/2016/11/urls-and-dois-a-complicated
>> -relationship.html
>>
>>
>> On 8 Nov 2016, at 17:01, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> And, along the same lines: https://www.w3.org/blog
>> /2016/10/doidona-vs-the-internet/
>>
>> *Tzviya Siegman*
>> Information Standards Lead
>> Wiley
>> 201-748-6884
>> tsiegman@wiley.com
>>
>> *From:* Tim Cole [mailto:t-cole3@illinois.edu <t-cole3@illinois.edu>]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 08, 2016 10:57 AM
>> *To:* 'W3C Digital Publishing IG'
>> *Subject:* DOIs in practice
>>
>> Having missed yesterday's call, I apologize if this blog post has already
>> come up, but just in case I thought some might find it interesting:
>>
>> *http://ws-dl.blogspot.com/2016/11/2016-11-07-linking-to-persistent.html
>> <http://ws-dl.blogspot.com/2016/11/2016-11-07-linking-to-persistent.html>*
>>
>> As the post describes, even when a user clicks on a DOI, they often end
>> up bookmarking or forwarding the non-DOI link. There are various ways
>> publishers try to mitigate against this, and the post suggests another
>> approach, but at present practice varies widely, so the problem persists
>> (pun intended).
>>
>> The blog is one maintained by Michael Nelson's digital library group at
>> Old Dominion University.
>>
>> Tim Cole
>> University of Illinois at UC
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Digital Publishing Technical Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2016 23:21:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:35 UTC