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

Re: DOI and the non-IETF tree

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
Message-Id: <1063384420.9839.73.camel@dirk.dm93.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

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