[uf-discuss] [citation] url field

[Michael McCracken]

On 12/8/06, Alf Eaton <lists at hubmed.org> wrote:
>
> On 04 Dec 2006, at 21:48, Michael McCracken wrote:
>
> > I do think that a URL field (class="url") should be included, to
> > represent a link to a copy of the cited work, and if we want to mark
> > up one or more identifiers, we can use a separate class (I suggest
> > "uid") to do so. If we're lucky and there's a good way to merge them,
> > then use class="url uid".
> >
> > I'd like to get feedback on whether or not the list likes the idea of
> > a URL field as outlined above - separate from the issue of URNs and
> > metadata recovery.
>
> I think there could be either both a URL field (eg http://
> www.journal.com/volume/issue/article) and a URI field (eg info:pmid/
> 1234567), or collapse them both into just URI fields. They're all
> going to be ways to find the resource, and presumably the processor
> would know to choose the HTTP URL when appropriate.

OK, That seems like a reasonable presumption. It wouldn't be so hard
to do the right thing in software when faced with a non-http URI.
Either you know how to resolve it or you punt.

After all this, now I'm leaning towards a collapsed URI field. Was I
the only one who was holding out on a distinction?

> If there are enough useful identifiers that aren't URIs (I think
> there probably are), then there needs to be a UID field as well.

Can you come up with some examples of IDs that aren't URIs?
(preferably on the wiki for posterity?)
That would help move this along.

Thanks,
-mike

-- 
Michael McCracken
UCSD CSE PhD Candidate
research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/
misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/