Re: DOI "fact sheet"

2009/7/16 Norman Paskin <n.paskin@tertius.ltd.uk>

> It seems I was premature in my last mail - I received the full e mail with
> DB's suggestion (for some reason I didn't receieve the first one from DB as
> far as I can see).
>
> Our fact sheet tries to be brief, and to address a number of issues, both
> the URI/URN historic confusion but also the relationship to other (non web)
> identifiers (eg ISBN) which are important to our community, such as
> identifiers of non-digital abstractions. We've tried to represent the
> understanding to those who are not close to IETF/W3C activities but are
> users of identifiers, e.g. publishers, librarians, consumers.  We've found
> that those communities do indeed use the terms URL and URN (far more so
> than
> URI)



I made a similar experience, though I have a lot of hope for the adoption of
RFC 3986 terminology for the future: in the education of librarians, web
technology and web architecture is becoming a more and more key part,
including aspects like Semantic Web which heavily rely on the notion of URI.

Felix



> and we still encounter a number of questions about eg URN resolvers in
> libraries.  That was the primary focus of our factsheet for our members.
>  We
> are not attempting to represent the full detail of the techical
> specifications, but would like to cite the consensus and certainly try to
> avoid any misprepresentations.  We could certainly improve the factsheet to
> reference the RFC 3986 position, and would welome your suggestions for
> doing
> so.
>
>
> Dr. Norman Paskin
> Managing Agent
> International DOI Foundation
>
> Tel: (+44) 1865 559070
> Mobile: (+44) 7710 327569
> skype: npaskin
> www.tertius.ltd.uk
> www.linkedin.com/in/normanpaskin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 15 July 2009 23:46
> To: David Booth
> Cc: n.paskin@doi.org; www-tag
> Subject: Re: DOI "fact sheet"
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>