[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Handle-info] Re: Permissions Not Implemented?
On Feb 11, 2008, at 5:25 PM, Hammond, Tony wrote:
Thanks Sean for the confirmation (and explanation).
Might it not be appropriate now to consider issuing a revised RFC at
some
point (hopefuly soon) to firm up the current position of the HS?
These diffs
(as well as the type diffs which I also questioned) could be taken
care of
in some kind of 5-year overhaul of the RFC. (And note that some
standards
e.g. NISO have a 5-year review.)
We do have plans to revise/update/clean-up the RFCs to clarify the
issue you mentioned as well as a few other minor issues.
And another open question, which I hate to mention, but it's still
open -
and therefore fair game, is about a native URI scheme for handle, or
URN
namespace if that's preferred - or both (there is a precedent, I
think, but
can't remember off the top of my head).
I know that a "doi:" registration is likely deferring to an eventual
ISO
imprimatur on the DOI System, but not sure that that has any direct
bearing
on handle. I wonder if it might be appropriate to consider the
bundling of a
URI scheme specification (or URN) together with any revised RFC
spec, rather
than being undertaken as a separate business (which will only draw
flak and
grief and "woe is us"). Other protocols - notably HTTP (RC 2616) - are
responsible for declaring their own URI schemes. Seems to me this
could be
the right opportunity to deftly tuck that away in some kind of
appendix.
There has already been a relaxing of the URI registration stranglehold
(witness "info"). And may be better to get in before the "linked
data" wave
converges all to HTTP.
Great idea, I would like to see a top level handle URI. One potential
issue with the registration authority might be registering a top level
scheme (hdl:) that is already represented by existing URIs (info:hdl
or urn:hdl). Although there are some that would argue http://hdl.handle.net/
is an existing "scheme" and therefore hdl: isn't needed. Of course
that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I think the design of the top level hdl: URI scheme would be a good
topic of discussion on this list. Anyone else have any input/
preferences?
Cheers,
Sean
_______________________________________________
Handle-Info mailing list
Handle-Info@cnri.reston.va.us
http://www.handle.net/mailman/listinfo/handle-info