Skip to main content

Notice

We are in the process of rolling out a soft launch of the RDA website, which includes a new member platform. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: https://rda-login.wicketcloud.com/users/confirmation. Visitors may encounter functionality issues with group pages, navigation, missing content, broken links, etc. As you explore the new site, please provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Thank you for your understanding and support as we work through all issues as quickly as possible. Stay updated about upcoming features and functionalities: https://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-web-platform-upcoming-features-and-functionalities/

#130721

Hi Christina,
DOI, ARK, etc. etc. are all systems of DIOs (digital identifiers for objects)
whose core technical underpinning is an architecture built around a (logically unique)
registry associating a potentially meaningless (some say “opaque”) identifier
with a meaning (usully, but not always, the URL of a “landing page” describing
the object).
As a consequence, as clearly stated in the RFC for the Handle System [1],
“persistence” is not an intrinsic property of DIOs, but a function of administrative care.
All systems of DIOs are not born equal: for example, ARKs are technically
superior when it comes to designating versions, subparts or variants of a
digital object, as the syntactic structure of ARK identifiers allows to do this
in a natural way.
The reason why one particular system becomes popular and overshadows the others
is usually a quite interesting subject for social sciences and economics, more
than technical virtue: we are all still using today QWERTY keyboards that slow
us down, and I had to spend quite a few years when I was younger writing code
that had to cope with 64KB memory segments in the x86 processor family (really, that
was masochisms :-)).
AFAICT, DOI have been pushed forward by scientific printing houses when they had
to undergo their digital transformation, while ARKs are today extremely popular
among librarians, and from what I see these two communities could really benefit
from increased cross fertilisation.
On the other side, IDOs (Identifiers for Digital Objects), which are extremely
popular in the software development community, are fundamentally different from
DIOs and seem very little known in both of the above mentioned communities, and
so I hope you will not mind if I keep pointing every now and then to the key
article we ended up publishing in iPres 2018 to contribute to clarify these
issues and build bridges among the different communities [2].
Cheers

Roberto
[1] “The only operational connection between a handle andthe entity it names is
maintained within the Handle System. This of course does not guarantee
persistence, which is a function of administrative care.”
S. Sun, L. Lannom, and B. Boesch. 2003. Handle System Overview. RFC 3650.
[2] see https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01865790 for a discussion
——————————————————————
Computer Science Professor
(on leave at INRIA from IRIF/University Paris Diderot)
Director
Software Heritage E-mail : ***@***.***
INRIA Web : http://www.dicosmo.org
Bureau C123 Twitter : http://twitter.com/rdicosmo
2, Rue Simone Iff Tel : +33 1 80 49 44 42
CS 42112
75589 Paris Cedex 12
——————————————————————
GPG fingerprint 2931 20CE 3A5A 5390 98EC 8BFC FCCA C3BE 39CB 12D3