Re: [urn] URN:DOI namespace registration request

[Paul Jessop <[e-mail]>]

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 
--------------------------------------------- 
[e-mail]      [phone]
 
 
 

On 21/01/2021, 04:08, "Dale R. Worley" <[e-mail]> wrote:

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

    Paul Jessop <[e-mail]> 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.

    Dale