On 10/07/2015 11:24, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 7/9/15 2:59 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> It might be worth stating this in the affirmative: The URN situation is >> entirely independent of the DOI situation and it is important to handle >> the two topics entirely separately. > > I don't think they're entirely independent. It seems to me > that the question of why we're not providing resolution > services or indexing URNs is somewhat different from the question > of why we're not providing resolution services or indexing URNs > when we're paying money and cycles to provide indexing and access > using some other bibliographic identifier. One looks like an > oversight or constrained resources, the other suggests that > we're thinking about bibliographic identifiers and have the > money to support their assignment but are going with DOIs. I think it's something to do with this rough consensus and running code business that I keep hearing about. OK, sorry to sound sarcastic, but this isn't a computer science issue, or a matter of hurt pride over http://dx.doi.org/10.17487/RFC2648 or https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kunze-ark/. It's simply what the world uses. Brian Brian