- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:45:40 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: n.paskin@doi.org, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
David Booth writes: > The current URI specification, RFC 3986 > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt > in section 1.1.3 clearly explains the relationship. > > It would be good to get the DOI "fact sheet" updated to properly reflect > this. Anyone on the TAG want to step up to take this on? Thanks. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 -------------------------------------- David Booth <david@dbooth.org> Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org 07/13/2009 05:59 PM To: n.paskin@doi.org cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM) Subject: DOI "fact sheet" Dr. Paskin, As noted here http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jul/0093.html I find the "fact sheet" on the doi.org web site at http://www.doi.org/factsheets/DOIIdentifierSpecs.html currently somewhat misleading. I realize that there was confusion about URIs, URNs and URLs back around 2000 or 2002 when some of the earlier discussions took place, but this confusion has since been worked out. The current URI specification, RFC 3986 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt in section 1.1.3 clearly explains the relationship. It would be good to get the DOI "fact sheet" updated to properly reflect this. Thanks -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 22:44:12 UTC