On 7/7/15 10:27 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 7/6/15 11:36 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> There goes the whistle. Unsupported assertion while claiming same, >> Offense. 5 yard penalty. How about instead pointing out the incorrect >> statements and test your assertion? > I assume that this is some sort of sports metaphor? > > I've pointed this out several times but the justifications > presented in the intro are largely false, and if they're > not false it's because they're hedged. Statements like > "organizations that use DOIs can have trouble locating > documents that don't have DOIs" are true only because of > the presence of the word "can"; I think you'd be extremely > hard-pressed to find an organization that can't track down > a publicly-available document that doesn't have a DOI > assigned. That seems like a fair criticism, and at the very least calls for some justification for that particular sentence. Thank you for being specific. > > There have also been suggestions that since the local part > of a DOI is opaque its structure doesn't actually matter. > I would argue that its structure doesn't matter to the > IDF but should matter to us, much in the same way that > a protocol that carries an encrypted blob of something > doesn't care about what's inside that blob but the blob's > sender and recipients care a very great deal. That's > a feature of plain old layering and encapsulation. At > this point we have enough experience with naming to be > reluctant to adopt flat namespaces when avoidable, I think. Do we have any reason to believe that we will be scaling a DOI to beyond the use of RFC such that a flat name won't suffice? Additional hierarchy comes with its own complexities. > > I'm not opposed to putting DOIs on RFCs despite seeing scant > benefit from doing so. I am opposed to putting out documents > that provide justifications that are not actually correct. > Fair enough. Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature