Talk:Digital object identifier
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Recently I've raised the possibility (on the Wikipedia-L list) of implementing DOI into Wikipedia in the same way as ISBNs are: the wiki will simply fashion a link out of anything that follows a DOI code. Problems are the parsing (how long is the longest DOI string and what are the stopping characters). Another solution would be an interwiki identifier ([doi:etc.etc./94809324]). Any ideas on the matter? Who does one approach to have this implemented? JFW | T@lk 13:46, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I created a template doi (see Template talk:doi) that simulates this:
The main example 10.1002/ISBNJ0-471-58064-3 (DOI:10.1002/ISBNJ0-471-58064-3) seems to be invalid. Is this a made up example, or should this be looked into? --Alex 02:03, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
The ISBN example is not only invalid, but the explanation is also wrong. The "-3" does not refer to a specific part of the book, but is part of the ISBN itself (in fact, it is its checksum). --Qlmatrix 14:17, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make something like the PMID WP:PMID that seems to be well integrated in wikipedia? KristianMolhave 20:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Difference from URNs
It would be great if the article could discuss the difference between DOIs and URNs, since at first glance they seem to do much the same thing. —Psychonaut 01:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] resolution
The wikilink to resolution points a disambiguos page. I have no idea where it should point. any help would be great. 
STHayden [ Talk ] 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DOIs are not specifically a legal concept, so term 'Intellectual property' may not be the best
The article does not document that DOIs were originally invented to specify ownership of written work, so I am hoping that the more neutral wording of what they identify might be restored.
Since I chanced to hit upon this article, I read the opening sentence and found that, wow, intellectual property is key to the definition of DOIs. Wanting to know if this was a well-settled conclusion of the editors working here, I found that from January 2004 until April 2006 this article had basically this opening sentence:
- A digital object identifier (or DOI) is a permanent identifier (permalink) given to a World Wide Web file or other Internet document so that if its Internet address changes, users will be redirected to its new address.
Then, after an edit on 3 April 2006 by User:Cogitabondo who never again appeared on Wikipedia, suddenly this was the opening sentence:
- A digital object identifier (or DOI) is a standard for persistently identifying a piece of intellectual property on a digital network and associating it with related current data, the metadata, in a structured extensible way.
This mixes together an information retrieval term (DOI) with a controversial legal concept. If a DOI pointed to a Wikipedia article, would that make the WP article intellectual property? The catch phrase about the DOI as a "bar code for intellectual property" is repeated in the article, but with no speaker identified, and none was easily findable with Google. The DOI Handbook more neutrally states "A DOI® (Digital Object Identifier) name is an identifier (not a location) for an entity on digital networks." Please reply if you have opinions on whether I should restore the original wording, or something similar. EdJohnston 00:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Privacy protection?
Recently 213.188.227.119 (talk • contribs) asked a question under Privacy Protection about why DOI providers need to collect IP addresses and domain names for people looking up articles. While this may be a valid point, I think it needs to be neutrally phrased (per WP:NPOV). If we can quote someone as asking that question (and cite a reliable source for them asking it), it is clearly OK. I'm not sure if we can ask it directly. I suggest this section needs to be rephrased. EdJohnston 19:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
