On 03/04/2012 15:53, John Erickson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM, David Booth<da...@dbooth.org> wrote:
On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 14:33 +0100, Phil Archer wrote:
[ . . . ] The actual URI for it is
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=36266
(or rather, that's the page about the spec but that's a side issue for
now).
That URI is just horrible and certainly not a 'cool URI'. The Eurostat
one is no better.
Does the datatype URI have to resolve to anything (in theory no, but in
practice? Would a URN be appropriate?
It's helpful to be able to click on the URI to figure out what exactly
was meant. How about just using a URI shortener, such as tinyurl.com or
bit.ly?
David's good point raises an even bigger point: why isn't ISO minting
DOI's for specs?
What shall we do? Start a petition? Go on a march through Geneva? (it's
nice there this time of year).
Or, at least, why can't ISO manage a DOI-equivalent space that would
rein-in bogusly-long URIs, make them more manageable, and perhaps more
functional e.g. CrossRef's Linked Data-savvy DOI proxy
<http://bit.ly/HcStYl>
Yep, that would do the job certainly. Hmmm... unless Crossref could mint
URIs out of, say, ISO/IEC 5218:2004 ??
I'm sure it could but is the demand sufficient and would ISO allow it?
--
Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment
http://www.w3.org/egov/
http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
