DOI

[Tony Linde]

Thanks for that, Andreas. I'd not heard of it before. Looks very interesting
- meets some of the concerns I had with DC when we were looking at it -
seems more aligned with what we're trying to achieve. 

I'm not sure there's much we can do with it at the moment but it seems that
it'd be very easy to convert in the future - we're already set up with the
same structure for our identifier - it'd just be a matter of switching all
the authorityIDs to DOI prefixes - the resourceKey would simply become the
suffix. And the base VOResource schema could be our metadata set updated to
include any extra info the DOI requires. Might need to change the management
of authorityIDs as I'm not sure every full registry would want to be a
registration agency - and we'd need to come up with a viable charging model.

Maybe you or someone else could prepare a position paper on *why* it would
be a good idea to switch to DOI if that is what you think we should do and
we can look at it next year (after we've got through the Jan 2005 demos).

Cheers,
Tony. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registry at eso.org [mailto:owner-registry at eso.org] 
> On Behalf Of Andreas Wicenec
> Sent: 20 June 2004 17:11
> To: registry at ivoa.net
> Subject: DOI
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> is anybody aware of the Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs, 
> http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june03/paskin/06paskin.html and 
> http://www.doi.org/handbook_2000/toc.html)? Has it been 
> discussed already and I just missed it?
> 
> Cheers,
> Andreas
>