- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:33:40 -0500
- To: Larry Lannom <llannom@cnri.reston.va.us>
- Cc: "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan@tobias.name>, uri@w3.org
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 08:55, Larry Lannom wrote: [...] > That same vast majority of DOIs are now referenced through a > http-to-handle proxy or gateway service that returns http re-directs, > e.g., http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35057062 will return a re-direct to the > web page for the journal article identified by that DOI. Ah... so in fact, the whole thing relies on HTTP and DNS after all, and the name http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35057062 is sufficient for your purposes. I don't see any reason why these things need any other name in URI space; whatever policy guarantees are associated with a new doi: URI schema (or even a urn:doi: namespace) have already been associated with http://dx.doi.org/... . And I see lots of costs to having the world support more than one name for them. "Authors of specifications SHOULD avoid introducing new URI schemes when existing schemes can be used to meet the goals of the specifications." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030627/#pr-new-scheme-expensive "To help parties know when they are referring to the same resource, it follows that URI producers should be conservative about the number of different URIs they produce for the same resource." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030627/#identifiers-comparison -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 12 September 2003 12:33:42 UTC