Re: [urn] Formal request for URN for ITU

["John R Levine" <[e-mail]>]

> Since DOIs and Handles use the same resolver, you can add urn:doi: to 
> every Handle, and it resolves OK. For instance: 
> https://hdl.handle.net/urn:doi:10138/236932. Alas, adding urn:handle: to 
> Handle URI does not work. Since currently the resolver just ignores the 
> urn:doi: part of the URI, extending similar behaviour to urn:handle: is 
> trivial (although the Handle service should be smart enough to apply 
> urn:handle: just to Handles, and urn:doi: just to DOIs).

Well, for some version of work.  The doi.org proxy is actually quite 
sophisticated and returns different results depending on want content type 
the client asks for.  The default is a redirect to the object's own URI, 
but it can also return bibliographic info in a variety of formats, 
something that document formatters depend on.  Does handle.net do that? 
Since it's not connected to the DOI database it's hard to see how it could 
unless it's just a double proxy to doi.org.

> DOI display is an important issue since "naked" DOI such as 10.100/182 is neither actionable nor (fully reliably) recognizable in plain text. There are a lot of other strings which begin with "10." and contain "/".  Crossref solution is technology dependent but may be expected to be actionable in the Web for a long time.

I have no objection to making it easier to recognize DOIs (having written 
the code that creates and maintains the DOIs for RFCs) but be careful of 
assuming that all ways to write or dereference DOIs are the same.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly