- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:40:25 -0400
- To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress scripsit:
> 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.
Not at all. The IETF will never use a name with a hyphen in it, so any
hypothetical "doi" will not conflict with "org.foo-doi" or "vnd.ms-doi".
> 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.
No, only all unhyphenated names. Just as "thomas.loc.gov" belongs to the LoC,
but "thomas.reuters.com" belongs to Reuters, but the bare name "thomas"
is not available for anyone. In this case, the IETF gets the first-mover
advantage of being allowed to use bare names like "http" instead of "ietf-http",
but that's small potatoes. The essential point is that people assigning
scheme names don't step on each other.
> 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.
In that case there's probably a case for IETF registration.
--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"In the sciences, we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side
with the giants on whose shoulders we stand."
--Gerald Holton
Received on Friday, 12 September 2003 14:41:24 UTC