- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:21:21 -0800
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CABevsUEuV_mKLsWui4jnbCPvAKMVnPqbvMts3-o9Y-sSxofUpQ@mail.gmail.com>
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