W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2003

Re: DOI and the non-IETF tree

From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:56:53 -0400
Message-ID: <020601c37935$b8be4250$849c938c@lib.loc.gov>
To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, "Larry Lannom" <llannom@cnri.reston.va.us>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>

From: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
> Larry Lannom scripsit:
> > 1. The distinction between IETF and non-IETF source and or continued
> > control of a scheme seems reasonable, but what is mking of
> > building it into the label? That is, what do I know about, say,
> > org-doi:10.123/456 that I don't know from doi:10.123/456?
> Because the IETF may wish to define a scheme called doi in the future.

Wow! I had the same question in mind, as Larry, and was anxiously awaiting
an informed answer, and I suppose this is an informed answer.  I must say,
in my opinion, it's  quite unreasonable.....

....for a number of reasons:
1. nobody's going to pay attention to the prefix anyway so what this means
essentially is that DOI would go to all the trouble to register  'doi'
(whether it's called 'doi' or 'vnd-doi') and have to worry that someday IETF
is going to register 'doi'  rendering DOI's effort useless.
2. If IETF has a 'doi' scheme in mind, tell DOI that, rather than say "who
knows, we might want to register it someday". In other word, the reasoning
seems to be saying that the IETF want to reserve all possible  names.
3. the DOI's 'doi' is widely recognized in the publishing and intellectual
property world, and if the IETF were to define a 'doi' scheme, that would be
a disaster.

Please note I'm not arguing here for or against registration of a 'doi'
scheme, just that the reason given above doesn't seem reasonable.

Received on Friday, 12 September 2003 10:05:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:06 UTC