Re: Datatypes with no (cool) URI

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM, David Booth <> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 14:33 +0100, Phil Archer wrote:
>> [ . . . ] The actual URI for it is
>> (or rather, that's the page about the spec but that's a side issue for
>> now).
>> That URI is just horrible and certainly not a 'cool URI'. The Eurostat
>> one is no better.
>> Does the datatype URI have to resolve to anything (in theory no, but in
>> practice? Would a URN be appropriate?
> It's helpful to be able to click on the URI to figure out what exactly
> was meant.  How about just using a URI shortener, such as or

David's good point raises an even bigger point: why isn't ISO minting
DOI's for specs?

Or, at least, why can't ISO manage a DOI-equivalent space that would
rein-in bogusly-long URIs, make them more manageable, and perhaps more
functional e.g. CrossRef's Linked Data-savvy DOI proxy

John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
Director, Web Science Operations
Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
<> <>
Twitter & Skype: olyerickson

Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 14:53:37 UTC