Presentation on theme: "Doi> DOI and URI specifications IDF Strategy meeting Bologna 2005."— Presentation transcript:
doi> DOI and URI specifications IDF Strategy meeting Bologna 2005
doi> DOI and URI specifications See DOI factsheet: Internet Identifier Specifications DOI as URI was submitted 2004 and rejected for odd reasons – one of several things which led to internal IETF debates Recent revisions of URI specification Caused us to ask CNRI to review current DOI factsheet Continued lack of uptake of URN
Internet: persistent identifiers on the web 1992: Berners-Lee: universal document identifier 1994: RFC 1738 : Uniform Resource Locator 1995: RFC 1808 : Relative Uniform Resource Locators 1998: RFC 2396 URI Generic Syntax (replaces 1738 and 1808) 2004: RFC 2396 bis (revision) IETF consensus process 2005: RFC 3986, "URI Generic Syntax" 1999: RFC Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names 1999: RFC Guidelines for new URL Schemes 2005: Draft "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes" - revision of RFCs 2717/2718.
Persistent identifiers on the web: observations URLs, as currently understood, are demonstrably not persistent –calling them URIs doesnt fix that The IETF RFC consensus process, and the separate existence of W3C, leads to ongoing debate and standards with a vague existence –compare with ISO standards –W3C web site on naming and addressing is incomplete –Current discussion of non-IETF namespaces as separate (info, DOI) The Web is not the universe –It is not all of digital information (<1%): see How much Information [e.g. ; Blackberry services medical, legal] –It is not all of the internet (see What is the Internet..) URI is a useful catch-all syntactic device for referencing in XML – can describe e.g. ISBNs as URIs –Useful single framework which can accommodate any other identifier for referencing – but does not deliver without effort. URN mechanism (10 years old) still not implemented – renewed interest may help us. Persistence = organisation is now becoming recognised – commitment statement
Part of a much wider fight (not ours!) The governance of the DNS will not completely encompass future Internet addressing and navigation, which is a good thing, not a shortcoming. The system of domain names, IP numbers, root servers and protocol identifiers is not static but a technology capable of evolving into a better form. As such, the current system should not be treated as sacrosanct, but amenable to innovation. The paradox of Internet governance is that any institutional arrangement will by nature be a collusion of political power and financial interests that acts to freeze into place the current technical design, and make new and better approaches almost impossible to emerge-much as the system of national telecom operators dominated communications for a century until the Internet emerged as the unlikely force that upended it. We can already see that future Internet navigation will not simply be addresses linked to computers, but to billions of devices, file- documents, real-time video and audio streams, objects though RFID tags, and even constantly changing instantiations of information - all which will make today's DNS and its governance seem anachronistic. Allowing for alternative addressing and navigation across the network, alongside a sanctioned 'legacy' DNS, will be a balanced way to achieve diversity, experimentation and progress, while also ensuring stability and reliability. Kenneth Neil Cukier (Technology Correspondent, The Economist) at the OII Forum on Internet Governance 6 May 2005
doi> DOI and URI specifications On the agenda for the DCC meeting on Persistent Identifiers, Glasgow June 2005 (NP + Sean Reilly): we will revise our Factsheet after that. –NB: Not a formal IETF meeting CNRI will draft a Handle URI spec for internal review and then RFC publication. A DOI spec would be identical –could be reasonable to publish a separate spec to manage future changes (the returned values of generic handles and DOIs could vary significantly in the future) –but that spec could now just be a pointer to the handle spec.
doi> DOI and URN specifications And URN? Whether we then bother to register a URN spec will depend on any activity. Michael Mealing of Network Solutions has promised something in the way of code or plug-in to CENDI. (US government users). If that happens and is taken up, we will consider. URI spec should precede URN –easy to imagine a URI spec being rejected because of an existing URN spec - harder to imagine the reverse