[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Handle-info] URI Scheme



I've had chats with Larry about this in the past.
I think it is needed.

I know there might be politics involved, but it's time to revisit it.

I'll also endorse the idea for my colleagues in Australia working on their projects.

Maybe we should collectively author the submission, so it comes from the community.

     - Dan

On Feb 11, 2008 1:07 PM, Sean Reilly <sreilly@cnri.reston.va.us> wrote:

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



--
Daniel R. Rehak, Ph.D.

Skype: drrehak
Email:  daniel.rehak@gmail.com
Web:    http://lsal.org/
Tel:      +1 412 931 7317
Mob:    +1 412 805 7683