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

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com> wrote:
> 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

You are right, it's not all registrars. I meant Crossref DOIs.
I think Datacite DOIs do this too, but I'm not sure.

> 2. Are you sure its an Information Resource?

Nobody can be sure of any such question. I would say it is (as would
be a variety of FRBR Works or Expressions or Manifestations, and many
other things besides), but there is nothing I could possibly say that
would persuade you of this.

This is why, as Tim and I keep saying, you have to forget about the
"information resource" nonsense and focus instead on the idea of
content or instantiation. I assume you're aware of what I've written
on this subject, so it would be pointless for me to say more here.

I hope the TAG will make a clear statement about this to help people
stop bickering about this kind of thing.

Often I think people attack "information resource" just because they
want to use 200s for their linked data descriptions. This is a rather
indirect tactic, and it misses the whole point of httpRange-14(a),
which admittedly was a screwup in execution, but not idiotic in
motivation.

Jonathan

> 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 20:27:48 UTC