Re: Datatypes with no (cool) URI

On 03/04/2012 15:53, John Erickson wrote:
> 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?

What shall we do? Start a petition? Go on a march through Geneva? (it's 
nice there this time of year).

> 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
> <>

Yep, that would do the job certainly. Hmmm... unless Crossref could mint 
URIs out of, say, ISO/IEC 5218:2004 ??

I'm sure it could but is the demand sufficient and would ISO allow it?



Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment
+44 (0)7887 767755

Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 15:05:12 UTC