RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-paskin-d oi-uri-03.txt (updated from -02.txt)
"Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com> Fri, 16 May 2003 14:34 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27474 for <uri-review-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 16 May 2003 10:34:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4GE1Xv13634 for uri-review-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 16 May 2003 10:01:33 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4GE1XB13631 for <uri-review-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 16 May 2003 10:01:33 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27459; Fri, 16 May 2003 10:33:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19GgIu-00004D-00; Fri, 16 May 2003 10:35:24 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19GgIt-000049-00; Fri, 16 May 2003 10:35:23 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4GE1MB13622; Fri, 16 May 2003 10:01:22 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4GE0tB13509 for <uri-review@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 16 May 2003 10:00:55 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27449 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 May 2003 10:32:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19GgIJ-000044-00 for uri-review@ietf.org; Fri, 16 May 2003 10:34:47 -0400
Received: from elslonexc001.epress.co.uk ([194.128.151.2]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19GgII-00003m-00 for uri-review@ietf.org; Fri, 16 May 2003 10:34:46 -0400
Received: by elslonexc001.epress.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <LBM869BS>; Fri, 16 May 2003 15:33:15 +0100
Message-ID: <54A600C436EA694581B93E4BD4D4788A06B739EA@elslonexc004.wins.epress.co.uk>
From: "Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
To: 'Larry Masinter' <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: hardie@qualcomm.com, uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-paskin-d oi-uri-03.txt (updated from -02.txt)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 15:35:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: uri-review-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: uri-review-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Hi Larry: Thanks for the feedback on the "doi" URI Internet-Draft. You've raised some useful points which we hope to have answered below. Tony & Eamonn Tony Hammond Advanced Technology Group, Elsevier Ltd 32 Jamestown Road, London, NW1 7BY, UK <tel:+44-20-7424-4445> <mailto:t.hammond@elsevier.com> #1 - Why not URN? To answer that point we note this passage in RFC 2396 "Although many URL schemes are named after protocols, this does not imply that the only way to access the URL's resource is via the named protocol." Is it now to be suggested that new candidate URI schemes must be tightly bound to an Internet protocol? We also note that the functional requirements for URNs (RFC 1737) do not coincide with those of DOI, e.g. URN encoding. Furthermore, URN syntax places additional restrictive syntactic constraints on "doi" URIs. We view registered URI schemes such as "tel", "fax", etc as being valid and see a useful precedent for a loose binding of URI scheme to Internet protocol such as exhibited by DOI. #2 - Section 7. Good point - the word "service" is used throughout the draft in two different contexts - both for the DOI resolution mechanism, and for DOI services accessible on dereference of a "doi" URI. We propose the following change of "resolution service" to "resolution mechanism": "Resolution of a DOI is accomplished through an appropriate resolution mechanism using a network protocol specific to that mechanism." There is intentionally no mention of the DOI resolution mechanisms, which should be regarded as out-of-band services that are known to users of the "doi" URI scheme, in the same fashion that users of the "tel" URI scheme know how to dereference those URIs. (Note that additional out-of-band knowledge also may be required to dereference a "tel" URI - e.g. if the user is connected to a PBX and requires an external line.) #3 - IDF. It wasn't clear to us that further details might be required for an administrative authority - e.g. many URI schemes build upon the DNS system and presume a knowledge of the DNS adminitrative authority. We could revise the definition of the IDF to include some of the following text, e.g. something along the lines of: "The International DOI Foundation, Inc. is a non-stock membership corporation organized in 1997 and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, USA. The Foundation is controlled by a Board elected by the members of the Foundation. The Corporation is a "not-for-profit" organization, i.e. prohibited from activities not permitted to be carried on by a corporation exempt from US federal income tax under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 et seq. The activities of the Foundation are controlled by its members, operating under a legal Charter and formal By-laws. Membership is open to all organizations with an interest in electronic publishing, content distribution, rights management, and related enabling technologies." Current members of the IDF are listed below for reference. The list could be included as an informative annex to the I-D. #4 - Google. It should be pointed out that Google is primarily a harvester of documents referenced by "http" URI. Further, and more importantly only open sites are typically crawlable by robots. Subscription sites offering high value content are generally not indexable through search engines like Google. To support the contention that DOI is a well-established identifier in an active and deployed system the I-D referenced the DOI website for further information. As a simple indication of current usage, however, you might like to review last month's newsletter from CrossRef - a leading DOI Registration Agent: http://www.crossref.org/01company/10newsletter.html#eodiu "Total Records in System: 7,458,490 (6,644,724 in January)" #5 - Fee-based. Financial mechanisms are in place to support the DOI directory services (registration and resolution), although no particular business models are imposed upon DOI Registration Agencies. It is incorrect to refer to DOI as being a fee-based system for the DOI Prefix Holders (i.e. those enitities who can mint DOI identifiers) since this is not a requirement of operating a Registration Agency. Further, a "doi" URI is free at point of use (citation, dereference) by end users. #6 - Patent/Trademark. First it should be pointed out that there is no patent issued for DOI. Second, the intention in registering a trademark was purely to secure the integrity of the DOI system. This matter, however, would be best addressed by the IDF. ===== Current members of the IDF (May 2003) CHARTER MEMBERS Association of American Publishers British Library Elsevier International Publishers Association John Wiley & Sons McGraw-Hill, Educational and Professional Publishing Group Springer Verlag GENERAL MEMBERS Association for Computing Machinery Associazione Italiana Editori Cambridge University Press Copyright Clearance Center Die Deutsche Bibliothek EDP Sciences Hewlett-Packard Company IEEE International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO) Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)(UK) Knowledge Solutions LLC Koninklijke Bibliotheek Microsoft Corporation New England Journal of Medicine Nielsen BookData OCLC Online Computer Library Center Inc. The Open University Publishers Licensing Society STM International Association Wolters Kluwer International Health & Science > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Masinter [mailto:LMM@acm.org] > Sent: 14 May 2003 17:55 > To: hardie@qualcomm.com; uri-review@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: > draft-paskin-doi-uri-03.txt (updated from -02.txt) > > > I cannot find a functional difference between the spelling > "permanent identifiers" with a D, O and I rather than > a U, R and N. It seems to me that both have the same > intrinsic difficulties. If the DOI consortium wants to > resolve identifiers, it could as easily resolve those > that start with "urn" as those that start with "doi", > couldn't it? Or at least those that start with "urn:doi"? > > >* DOI administration and resolution (sections 6, 7) > > But the document's statement in section 7 is vacuous. It says: > > "Resolution of a DOI is accomplished through an appropriate > resolution service using a network protocol specific to that > service." > > I can't figure out what this means; it isn't to contrast > the method with resolution through an inappropriate resolution > service, or using a network protocol which isn't appropriate > for the service? But there's no actual definition for how > resolution takes place. > > Nor does it actually say how administration works. It makes > reference to the "International DOI Foundation", without > any reference to the terms of incorporation of this > organization (if it is?) or its provenance. For all > I know, the "International DOI Foundation" is Norm in > his garage. Should we assign a URI namespace for everyone > who asks for one? > > Section 8.1 attempts to address "demonstrated utility", > and claims there are "10 million examples in current > use on the Internet". How was this number measured? > (A google search on 'doi' shows 1 million hits, but > most of those are about Doi-san (Japanese name) or > the Department of Industry or Directorate of > Information. > > I wouldn't mind so much if the document were up-front about > this being a naming service for a for-fee service > for name registration, whether or not it is "non-profit". > It's the same business model as the for-fee domain name > business, or, for that matter, RealNames. > > > Since "DOI and DOI.ORG are registered in the U.S. Patent > and Trademark Office" (according to > http://www.doi.org/registration_agencies.html), shouldn't > there be an additional intellectual property statement? > > If someone were to use a 'doi' URI without the permission > of the trademark/patent holder, would they be subject > to any intellectual property constraints? > > Larry > > > _______________________________________________ > Uri-review mailing list > Uri-review@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review > _______________________________________________ Uri-review mailing list Uri-review@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
- RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be… Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)
- RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be… Larry Masinter
- RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be… Tim Kindberg
- RE: [Uri-review] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be… Larry Masinter