Date:         Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:20:06 -0700
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: info:xv proposal
Comments: To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain

Yes, thanks, Jeff. I just got further news: There is a 3rd Internet
Draft (it was the 2nd one that had expired) and it looks like it will be
approved by the IETF. New entries are indeed going into the registry,
but the process at this point is rather informal. I'm making a case for
clear policies and procedures because I think it's important that info
develops into a useful tool, not a clutter.  Administering that will be
a challenging task. I'm not surprised there isn't a long queue of
volunteers!

kc

On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 11:25, Young,Jeff wrote:
> Sorry I didn't chime in sooner. I've been on vacation.
>
> I administer the "info" URI registry, but I'm not on the committee. There is
> indeed some concern about who will eventually take responsibility for
> vetting new registrations. In the mean time, though, I believe the committee
> will still accept new "info" URI registrations.
>
> Jeff
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karen Coyle [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:49 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [MODS] info:xv proposal
> >
> > On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 08:49, Andrew E Switala wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >     Quite.  info URIs don't appear to have any benefit *beyond* keeping
> > > RDF folks happy (disclaimer: I'm not an RDF folk either).
> > >
> >
> > Actually, I was somewhat present at the development of info, and it
> > didn't have anything to do with RDF. There had been attempts over the
> > years to define key identifiers, like the LCCN and the DOI, in the
> > IETF/IANA URN list. However, there were differences of opinion as to
> > what could be a URN, and it appears that because of these differences no
> > new URNs have been added for a while. (I'm telling you what I HEARD, not
> > what I KNOW.) The info URI makes it possible, in a way, to create URNs
> > without having to go through the URN process. It came about during the
> > standards process for the OpenURL. The OpenURL was the first to use the
> > registry format that info is using. Since everything in the OpenURL
> > registry needs to be identified with a URN, we needed a URN for the
> > various library-related identifiers. So it had to do with the OpenURL
> > registry in terms of motivation.
> >
> > Note that info is NOT an approved URI. The draft has expired and no
> > action was taken by IETF (I thought a vote was expected last fall).
> > Also, as I had understood it, the info registry is not accepting new
> > entries because there isn't a registry agency nor a method of managing
> > the registry. The policy document proposes a series of steps before
> > entries are accepted into the registry, including an internal review (no
> > idea if anyone is doing this now), and a public comment period. There is
> > supposed to be a board for the registry, which I don't think is in
> > place. So the status of the registry is somewhat vague to me at this
> > point, and I'm not sure who's in charge.
> >
> > --
> > -------------------------------------
> > Karen Coyle
> > Digital Library Specialist
> > http://www.kcoyle.net
> > Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
> > --------------------------------------
--
-------------------------------------
Karen Coyle
Digital Library Specialist
http://www.kcoyle.net
Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
--------------------------------------