For items that have been assigned a doi, isn't the doi unique (in the absence of errors--which i cannot recall having ever encountered)? Of course the same item in its various manifestations may have multiple dois, or may have versions that do not have dois as well as versions that do have them, and the versions may or may not be identical. We also need to account for the presence of illegitimate as well as legitimate copies--a person entering a WP reference may have gotten it from a site that has an unauthorized copy--quite a few scientific papers are present on the web in such versions.
There are really two problems: one is a pointer to the voucher authorized version of a document, which may well be the printed version, and the other problem is pointers to accessible legitimate versions. Crossref does a fairly nice job of this for online articles, but it organized to provide access to paid publishers versions preferentially, rather than to possible legitimate free versions.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Jodi Schneider jodi.schneider@deri.org wrote:
On 21 Jul 2010, at 21:43, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
A compromise could be that the ID is the first author's name plus an auto-incrememented ID per author. So for example, the first paper of mine the system learns is priedhorsky1, the second priedhorsky2, etc. So you get a system-generated ID for uniqueness but also something comprehensible for people.
Interesting. I'd really like ID's to be not only comprehensible but also to have a fair chance of being directly inputtable by humans.
For instance, on Wikipedia, if I know that I am looking for the article on "citation signals" I can type the URL directly, without searching.
In my ideal citation-wiki-in-the-sky, you could get to the citation directly in this way -- and sensible disambiguation pages would be automatically generated.
-Jodi _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l