21–30 of 67 posts
https://web.archive.org/web/20050305141724/http://www.doi.or...
Don’t just follow the links as they are on archive.org, because that wraps the links and you get an almost comical series of ultimately unsuccessful redirects (unlike many redirects on archive.org which often ARE successful when not using DOI links).
No, try the DOI links themselves by copy pasting them without the archive.org wrapper. I think you’ll find many of them (most of them?) are not working. This version of the page is from after “the handle system” had been up and rolling for a few years.
To be fair, maybe some browser plug-in is needed?
Notice also how thickly the web site is festooned with copyright, trademark, and registered trademark notices and the like. Feels off to me.
I’ve never understood this as anything other than an oddly secretive power and money grab by some entrenched stakeholders in publishing and document delivery. They seem to have non-guessable, non-hierarchy-revealing URLs that must be resolved using a database they control. It strikes me as a showcase of ways to try to get around web standards to make things locked down. Last time I looked at this (with horror, not wi…
I’ve never understood this as anything other than an oddly secretive power and money grab by some entrenched stakeholders in publishing and document delivery. They seem to have non-guessable, non-hierarchy-revealing URLs that must be resolved using a database they control. It strikes me as a showcase of ways to try to get around web standards to make things locked down. Last time I looked at this (with horror, not wi…
> non-hierarchy-revealing URLs that must be resolved using a database they control What do you mean? There is a journal prefix (Nature has 10.1038) and the link usually translates fairly directly to a URL for new articles. EDIT: Just looked it up in the DOI rules. The registrant chooses the suffix. So the journals are free to maintain 1:1 mapping to URLs if they wish. I assume DOI is popular because people trust that…
nature.com/2021/11/17/news/
versus:
10.1038.123.366.345643
And you ask what I mean. What I mean is the first one is transparently better in several ways.
If I got the syntax wrong, just focus on the first part then, nature.com versus 10.1083. One is more readable than the other.
I’ve never understood this as anything other than an oddly secretive power and money grab by some entrenched stakeholders in publishing and document delivery. They seem to have non-guessable, non-hierarchy-revealing URLs that must be resolved using a database they control. It strikes me as a showcase of ways to try to get around web standards to make things locked down. Last time I looked at this (with horror, not wi…
> non-hierarchy-revealing URLs that must be resolved using a database they control What do you mean? There is a journal prefix (Nature has 10.1038) and the link usually translates fairly directly to a URL for new articles. EDIT: Just looked it up in the DOI rules. The registrant chooses the suffix. So the journals are free to maintain 1:1 mapping to URLs if they wish. I assume DOI is popular because people trust that…
First, I don’t know how popular it is.
Second, look at what an absolutely poor job the doi.org site themselves have done keeping their showcased example links from their demonstration document from breaking over the years. See my comment elsewhere here about what I found on archive.org. What am I missing here? It looks like their link rot is close to 100%.
I’ve never understood this as anything other than an oddly secretive power and money grab by some entrenched stakeholders in publishing and document delivery. They seem to have non-guessable, non-hierarchy-revealing URLs that must be resolved using a database they control. It strikes me as a showcase of ways to try to get around web standards to make things locked down. Last time I looked at this (with horror, not wi…
> non-hierarchy-revealing URLs that must be resolved using a database they control What do you mean? There is a journal prefix (Nature has 10.1038) and the link usually translates fairly directly to a URL for new articles. EDIT: Just looked it up in the DOI rules. The registrant chooses the suffix. So the journals are free to maintain 1:1 mapping to URLs if they wish. I assume DOI is popular because people trust that…
Disclaimer - I’m at Crossref AMA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t know why you are downvoted, this site has always popped up as one of the big stakeholders in the weird DOI schemes.
This is the equivalent to tracing a domain registrar up to ICANN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> non-hierarchy-revealing URLs that must be resolved using a database they control What do you mean? There is a journal prefix (Nature has 10.1038) and the link usually translates fairly directly to a URL for new articles. EDIT: Just looked it up in the DOI rules. The registrant chooses the suffix. So the journals are free to maintain 1:1 mapping to URLs if they wish. I assume DOI is popular because people trust that…
Compare the readability and editability of: nature.com/2021/11/17/news/ versus: 10.1038.123.366.345643 And you ask what I mean. What I mean is the first one is transparently better in several ways. If I got the syntax wrong, just focus on the first part then, nature.com versus 10.1083. One is more readable than the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compare the readability and editability of: nature.com/2021/11/17/news/ versus: 10.1038.123.366.345643 And you ask what I mean. What I mean is the first one is transparently better in several ways. If I got the syntax wrong, just focus on the first part then, nature.com versus 10.1083. One is more readable than the other.
That’s why the display guidelines stipulate that DOIs are always expressed as URLs.
DOI's also apply to datasets ie. - https://www.ands.org.au/guides/doi
DOI's can theoretically apply to paragraphs, sentences, words. Each having a different DOI. There's a lot to them.
The in practice case for DOI's seems to be like a approximate hash function for things, with the location included. From memory retracted articles will have the same DOI, even though it will be different since it'll say it's retracted.