Further exploration reveals that http://doai.io , http://doi2oa.erambler.co.uk/ and https://oadoi.org/ (now http://unpaywall.org/ ) don't resolve handles in the way that https://doi.org/ does.
Having said that, at least some are open source ( https://github.com/jezcope/doi2oa) so it shouldn't be too hard to add. cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 at 14:20, Stuart A. Yeates <syea...@gmail.com> wrote: > Interesting insight Conal, I wasn't aware of that service. > > https://doi.org/10063/1710 redirects to > http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1710 using a 302 redirect, > implying that the server knows where the DOI resides by RFC 7231 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231 > > If 10063/1710 were not a valid DOI, the DOI server should use 303 (if it > redirects) and a 400 or 404 if it doesn't. > > cheers > stuart > -- > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky > > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 at 13:27, Conal Tuohy <conal.tu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Kia ora Stuart! >> >> I think the answer to your question is "no, the identifier is not a valid >> DOI". >> >> As evidence, I offer this URI which is supposed return information about >> the Registration Agency which registered that DOI: >> https://doi.org/doiRA/10063/1710 >> >> As you know, DOIs are a proper subset of Handles; and functionally, the >> DOI >> system relies on the Handle system as its infrastructure for URI >> resolution. I believe that when you resolve the URI < >> https://doi.org/10063/1710>, the DOI resolver is simply resolving the >> identifier as a Handle, and not first validating that the Handle is >> actually a valid DOI. I'd regard that as a bug in the DOI's resolver, >> personally. >> >> Cheers! >> >> Conal >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 at 09:37, Stuart A. Yeates <syea...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > We have a DSpace instance that is configured to issue handle.net >> > identifiers to all items, so links such as: >> > >> > https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1710 >> > http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1710 >> > https://hdl.handle.net/10063/1710 >> > http://hdl.handle.net/10063/1710 >> > >> > all take a web browser to the same content. The following URLs also take >> > web >> > browsers to the same content: >> > >> > https://doi.org/10063/1710 >> > http://doi.org/10063/1710 >> > https://dx.doi.org/10063/1710 >> > http://dx.doi.org/10063/1710 >> > >> > The lookup at https://www.doi.org/index.html resolves the doi >> "10063/1710" >> > to the same content. >> > >> > I have two questions: >> > >> > (a) is 10063/1710 a valid/legal doi for this item ? >> > (b) are the doi.org URLs above valid/legal for this item? >> > >> > The documentation on the https://www.doi.org/ and https://handle.net/ >> > websites is surprisingly quiet on these issues... >> > >> > [We've been assuming the answer to these questions is 'yes' but >> yesterday >> > this was questioned by a colleague, so I'm looking for definitive >> answers] >> > >> > cheers >> > stuart >> > -- >> > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky >> > >> >> >> -- >> Conal Tuohy >> http://conaltuohy.com/ >> @conal_tuohy >> +61-466-324297 >> >
