- From: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 10:53:03 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 14:33 +0100, Phil Archer wrote: >> [ . . . ] The actual URI for it is >> http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=36266 >> (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 tinyurl.com or > bit.ly? 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 <http://bit.ly/HcStYl> -- John S. Erickson, Ph.D. Director, Web Science Operations Tetherless World Constellation (RPI) <http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com> Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 14:53:37 UTC