On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 08:49, Andrew E Switala wrote:

>
>     Quite.  info URIs don't appear to have any benefit *beyond* keeping
> RDF folks happy (disclaimer: I'm not an RDF folk either).
>

Actually, I was somewhat present at the development of info, and it
didn't have anything to do with RDF. There had been attempts over the
years to define key identifiers, like the LCCN and the DOI, in the
IETF/IANA URN list. However, there were differences of opinion as to
what could be a URN, and it appears that because of these differences no
new URNs have been added for a while. (I'm telling you what I HEARD, not
what I KNOW.) The info URI makes it possible, in a way, to create URNs
without having to go through the URN process. It came about during the
standards process for the OpenURL. The OpenURL was the first to use the
registry format that info is using. Since everything in the OpenURL
registry needs to be identified with a URN, we needed a URN for the
various library-related identifiers. So it had to do with the OpenURL
registry in terms of motivation.

Note that info is NOT an approved URI. The draft has expired and no
action was taken by IETF (I thought a vote was expected last fall).
Also, as I had understood it, the info registry is not accepting new
entries because there isn't a registry agency nor a method of managing
the registry. The policy document proposes a series of steps before
entries are accepted into the registry, including an internal review (no
idea if anyone is doing this now), and a public comment period. There is
supposed to be a board for the registry, which I don't think is in
place. So the status of the registry is somewhat vague to me at this
point, and I'm not sure who's in charge.

--
-------------------------------------
Karen Coyle
Digital Library Specialist
http://www.kcoyle.net
Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
--------------------------------------