Re: [Discuss-DOI] Reference Linking: A Note on Syntax

[Godfrey Rust <godfreyrust@dds.netkonect.co.uk>]

Eric is right, these distinctions are ultimately arbitrary, but this doesnt
stop them
being made in relation to every created item, and the "abitrariness" being
settled, when
the stakes are high enough, in a court of law. Lawyers don't  change the
color, but they 
are part of the process of our agreeing what the color will be called in
any commercial
situation. Language, after all, is ultimately arbitrary and acquires
meaning by context, 
consent and recognition. This lack of precision doesnt stop us having to
use words.

One of the advantages of the "DOI Genre" approach is to allow a specific
sector to
agree on practical guidelines, reflecting their marketplace and practice,
for making 
useful distinctions between one creation and another, whether by type or
version. 
Each sector and creation type has its own flavours or  colours according to
its needs - 
the principle of functional granularity which is at the heart of the
<indecs> approach.   
Every creation type I have worked with has managed this reasonably
successfully and
necessarily in the physical environment. The electronic environment is
fundamentally
no different, it only adds complexity. I am not intimate with the dynamics
of journal publishing, 
but enough people from that sector have indicated that there a need to
recognise these distinctions,
and quite apart from discovery or linking requirements, unless it is always
the case that the 
rightsholder of the work and the manifestation are one and the same (which
it isn't) then 
failing to allow for their separation is simply storing up big trouble. All
of us who have 
developed or managed databases know the problems and cost which arise from
using
one piece of data simultaneously to mean two different things, and I'd
suggest that exactly 
the same applies here.  In a distributed interoperable environment as broad
as DOI is pitched at, 
to start off with such a fundamental systematic flaw seems to be walking
into avoidable confusion 
with our eyes open. 






At 07:32 PM 3/22/99 -0500, Eric Hellman wrote:
>At 8:02 PM +0000 3/22/99, Mark Bide wrote:
>>The distinction between digital and physical manifestations of a work may
>>be a difficult one and is certainly in need of clarification.
>>
>>Let us put that one on one side for a moment. The distinction between an
>>abstract work and *any* manifestation of that work is a crucial one. If you
>>doubt me, ask your lawyer.
>>
>
>It may be crucial, but it is still arbitrary. Lawyers are good at arguing
>that gray is black or that gray is white, but they don't change the color.
>
>Different applications will need to draw the arbitrary line in different
>places.
>
>A UPC code doesn't tell you whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. The
>tomato metadata for international tariff applications may say it's a
>vegetable, and the tomato metadata for botany may say it's a fruit.
>
>Show me an application where zero abstraction is desired in identifying a
>digital object, and I'll show you an application for hash code identifiers,
>not DOI's.
>
>Eric
>Eric Hellman
>Openly Informatics, Inc.
>http://www.openly.com/           Tools for 21st Century Scholarly Publishing
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>Discuss-DOI maillist  -  Discuss-DOI@doi.org
>http://www.doi.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-doi
>
>
Godfrey Rust
..........................................
Data Definitions
14 Gloucester Road
London W5 4JB
T (44) 181 567 1047
F (44) 181 579 0938
Mobile  07775 908398



------------------------------------------------------
Discuss-DOI maillist  -  Discuss-DOI@doi.org
http://www.doi.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-doi