LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  February 2012

BIBFRAME February 2012

Subject:

Re: The German National Library's response

From:

Juha Hakala <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:14:45 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (84 lines)

Hello,

Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> Am 08.02.2012 12:53, schrieb Karen Coyle:
>>
>> I actually wasn't thinking about readable v. opaque URIs, but that is
>> one topic for best practices. In my experience, you get loud complaints
>> with opaque URIs, but readable URIs are highly problematic.

In ISO TC 46/SC 9 (which develops identifier standards) there is a trend 
towards non-semantic (opaque) identifiers. The main argument in favour 
of this is that any semantics may eventually become meaningless. A 
counterargument is that if the identifier is used as a  URI, semantics 
may provide a hint for locating the correct resolution service(s) from 
the Internet. In this case such hints may not be necessary.

>> I was thinking about things like:
>> - "cool" URIs - hash? or no?

At least some technical experts think that the main weakness of the so 
called cool URIs is the need to maintain the domain name registration 
(and the organizations' inability to carry on with it for decades). See

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg01670.html

>> - PURLs v. agency domains

I would prefer persistent identifiers to cool URIs in this case. But the 
PID discussion should not concentrate on PURLs only. There are three 
other persistent identifier systems (DOI, Handle and URN) which are more 
popular and better standardized.

>> - what should the URI resolve to?

URN-related RFCs are currently being revised (see 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/urnbis/). I am currently writing a new 
version of RFC 2483, which specifies the resolution services URN can 
provide. In the present RFC 2483 the list of services is fixed. RFC 
2483bis will be based on the idea that IANA should establish a registry 
of informal and formal resolution services. Then URN user communities 
could register new services at will (and parameters to these services, 
for instance for requesting descriptive metadata about the resource in 
different formats).

Existing persistent identifier systems provide a diverse set of 
services. With ARK, for instance, it is possible to check the 
preservation commitment of the organisation holding a resource. I don't 
know if the PID systems will become more homogeneous in this respect in 
the future.

Nobody knows what the URIs utilized within this initiative should 
resolve to, but I am sure that the mechanism to be built should be 
flexible so that it can be adjusted to meet the future needs we don't 
foresee yet.

Best regards,

Juha

>>
>> That kind of thing.
>>
> 
> Does anyone know an answer to any of these questions? Therefore, I
> think, no URI is better than no URI at all. Use brief and simple and
> easily memorized codes for vocabularies like the terms in 337-338, and
> use IDnumbers for names and subjects and titles.
> Any implementation can easily relate them to all sorts of URIs that may
> be in current use or follow best practice or resolve to something
> useful for the purpose at hand. Verbal terms need changes and are
> language-bound, URLs are perishable, only codes and numbers are robust,
> easy to handle, and versatile.
> 
> B.Eversberg

-- 

  Juha Hakala
  Senior advisor, standardisation and IT

  The National Library of Finland
  P.O.Box 15 (Unioninkatu 36, room 503), FIN-00014 Helsinki University
  Email [log in to unmask], tel +358 50 382 7678

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager