Re: [urn] URN:DOI namespace registration request

Paul Jessop <> Thu, 21 January 2021 11:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D813A18AA for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 03:07:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mxej2UFxePNn for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 03:06:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A00D83A105F for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 03:06:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E28685C92 for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:06:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7wD6JLxHX1pz for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:06:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF2774EC3 for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:06:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:06:12 +0100
Received: from ([fe80::516d:9387:664a:7563]) by ([fe80::516d:9387:664a:7563%13]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.010; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:06:11 +0100
From: Paul Jessop <>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [urn] URN:DOI namespace registration request
Thread-Index: AQHW76sJI1e5A9wou0G/SzoGCMH/i6ox2sCA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:06:11 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.45.21011103
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
x-1and1-spam-score: 0.1/10
x-1and1-spam-level: None
x-1and1-expurgate-category: clean
x-provags-id: V02::y9Ck8c2l6807VjhB8vMI8Y4YJtw3o4ouZO/ptxVpt6XTW GtzjVY/XcgVNFZoJYkoWxrVmSXWMDlU545cl7KY3YwVxF1djyH SjRdWRHuvVzintWvqvLBC0FCeqUFLQasDQGJ90cqYXWtCresms zNdnpMGsJgz6s6COQy2+UC/xGFW0VcKOe7wuci/xdrkwkeG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <03133798E4573E4790DE31D19F8048B3@win.mail>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [urn] URN:DOI namespace registration request
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:07:02 -0000

Thanks Dale,

The sound you can hear is me kicking myself for not being more precise. The third party application was of course for the registration of a *URI scheme*. These correct use of terms is as you say important.

Thanks for your support.

Best regards,

Paul Jessop
Technology Advisor, The DOI Foundation

Paul Jessop              county analytics ltd 
rights - technology - markets - music - media 
---------------------------------------------      +44 7850 685378

On 21/01/2021, 04:08, "Dale R. Worley" <> wrote:

    This does, of course, address my concerns, and I withdraw them.  But the
    context on my part is probably worth explaining.

    Paul Jessop <> writes:
    > It is frustrating that someone else's provisional URI registration
    > continues to create confusion.

    Properly, you should use "scheme" here rather than "URI".  "URI" is a
    very general universe of identifiers, and "URNs" are a subset of them.
    So any "namespace" of URNs is perforce a set of URIs as well.

    > To be clear, the intent of The DOI Foundation is to address the
    > technical issues that have been raised here (which are confident we
    > can do) and continue the URN namespace request.

    OK, that was the point that was not clear to me, that the namespace
    registration is sponsored by the DOI Foundation.

    There was another source of confusion that DOIs as I've seen them
    (generally in academic papers and references thereto) are usually
    written in a form that *look* like URIs and I reflexively assumed that
    DOIs were defined to be compatible with URI syntax, thus allowing "doi"
    to be a URI scheme directly -- and that this was intended by the
    Foundation.  But IIRC from this discussion, the character set in DOIs is
    not limited to the URI character set, so even though all of the ones
    I've seen look like URIs, they aren't.