Re: NIR SIDETRACK Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net> wrote:
> ...
> There is a difference, since what is described could be an IR that
> does not have the description as content. A prime example is any DOI,
> e.g.
>
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000462
>
> (try doing conneg for RDF). The identified resource is an IR as you
> suggest, but the representation (after the 303 redirect) is not its
> content.

A couple of comments here:

1. Its not any DOI. I believe CrossRef are still the only registrar
that support this, but I might have missed an announcement. That's
still 50m DOIs though

2. Are you sure its an Information Resource? The DOI handbook [1]
notes that while typically used to identify intellectual property a
DOI can be used to identify anything. The CrossRef guidelines [2]
explain that "[a]s a matter of current policy, the CrossRef DOI
identifies the work, not its various potential manifestations...".

Is a FRBR work an Information Resource? Personally I'd say not, but
others may disagree. But as Dan Brickley has noted elsewhere in the
discussion, there's other nuances to take into account.

[1]. http://www.doi.org/handbook_2000/intro.html#1.6
[2]. http://crossref.org/02publishers/15doi_guidelines.html

Cheers,

L.

Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:08 UTC