💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc4452.txt captured on 2022-06-11 at 23:45:52.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group H. Van de Sompel
Request for Comments: 4452 LANL
Category: Informational T. Hammond
NPG
E. Neylon
Manifest Solutions
S. Weibel
OCLC
April 2006
The "info" URI Scheme
for Information Assets with Identifiers in Public Namespaces
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document defines the "info" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
scheme for information assets with identifiers in public namespaces.
Namespaces participating in the "info" URI scheme are regulated by an
"info" Registry mechanism.
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Terminology ................................................3
1.2. Information Assets .........................................3
2. Application of the "info" URI Scheme ............................4
3. The "info" Registry .............................................5
3.1. Management Characteristics of the "info" Registry ..........5
3.2. Functional Characteristics of the "info" Registry ..........5
3.3. Maintenance of the "info" Registry .........................6
4. The "info" URI Scheme ...........................................6
4.1. Definition of "info" URI Syntax ............................6
4.2. Allowed Characters Under the "info" URI Scheme .............8
4.3. Examples of "info" URIs ....................................9
5. Normalization and Comparison of "info" URIs ....................10
6. Rationale ......................................................12
6.1. Why Create a New URI Scheme for Identifiers from Public
Namespaces? ...............................................12
6.2. Why Not Use an Existing URI Scheme for Identifiers
from Public Namespaces? ...................................12
6.3. Why Not Create a New URN Namespace ID for
Identifiers from Public Namespaces? .......................12
7. Security Considerations ........................................13
8. IANA Considerations ............................................14
9. Acknowledgements ...............................................14
10. References ....................................................14
10.1. Normative References .....................................14
10.2. Informative References ...................................15
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
1. Introduction
This document defines the "info" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
scheme for information assets that have identifiers in public
namespaces but are not part of the URI allocation. By "information
asset" this document intends any information construct that has
identity within a public namespace.
1.1. Terminology
In this document, the keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "MAY", "MAY NOT", and "RECOMMENDED" are
to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] and indicate
requirement levels for compliant implementations.
1.2. Information Assets
There exist many information assets with identifiers in public
namespaces that are not referenceable by URI schemes. Examples of
such namespaces include Dewey Decimal Classifications [DEWEY],
Library of Congress Control Numbers [LCCN], NISO Serial Item and
Contribution Identifiers [SICI], NASA Astrophysics Data System
Bibcodes [BIBCODE], and National Library of Medicine PubMed
identifiers [PMID]. Other candidate namespaces include Online
Computer Library Center OCLC Numbers [OCLCNUM] and NISO OpenURL
Framework identifiers [OFI].
The "info" URI scheme facilitates the referencing of information
assets that have identifiers in such public namespaces by means of
URIs. When referencing an information asset by means of its "info"
URI, the asset SHALL be considered a "resource" as defined in RFC
3986 [RFC3986] and SHALL enjoy the same common syntactic, semantic,
and shared language benefits that the URI presentation confers. As
such, the "info" URI scheme enables public namespaces that are not
part of the URI allocation to be represented within the allocation.
The "info" URI scheme thus provides a bridging mechanism to allow
public namespaces to become part of the URI allocation.
Namespaces declared under the "info" URI scheme are regulated by an
"info" Registry mechanism. The "info" Registry allows a public
namespace that is not part of the URI allocation to be declared in a
registration process by the organization that manages it (the
Namespace Authority). The "info" Registry supports the declaration
of public namespaces that are not part of the URI allocation in a
manner that facilitates the construction of URIs for information
assets without imposing the burdens of independent URI registration
and maintenance of resource representations on the Namespace
Authority. Information assets identified within a registered
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
namespace SHALL be added or deleted according to the business
processes of the Namespace Authority, and yet MAY be referenced
within network applications via the "info" URI in an open,
standardized way without additional action on the part of the
Namespace Authority.
The "info" URI scheme exists primarily for identification purposes.
Implementations MUST NOT assume that an "info" URI can be
dereferenced to a representation of the resource identified by the
URI although Namespace Authorities MAY disclose in the registration
record references to service mechanisms pertaining to identifiers
from the registered namespace. Applications of the "info" URI scheme
are restricted to the identification of information assets and the
declaration of normalization rules for comparing identifiers of such
information assets regardless of whether any services relating to
such information assets are accessible via the Internet. References
to such services MAY be disclosed within an "info" registration
record, but these services SHALL NOT be regarded as authoritative.
The "info" URI scheme does not support global resolution methods.
2. Application of the "info" URI Scheme
Public namespaces that are used for the identification of information
assets and that are not part of the URI allocation MAY be registered
as namespaces within the "info" Registry. Namespace Authorities MAY
register these namespaces in the "info" Registry, thereby making
these namespaces available to applications that need to reference
information assets by means of a URI. Registrations of public
namespaces that are not part of the URI allocation by parties other
than the Namespace Authority SHALL NOT be permitted, thereby ensuring
against hostile usurpation or inappropriate usage of registered
service marks or the public namespaces of others.
Registration of a public namespace under the "info" Registry implies
no particular functionalities of the identifiers from the registered
namespace other than the identification of information assets. No
resolution mechanisms can be assumed for the "info" URI scheme,
though for any particular namespace there MAY exist mechanisms for
resolving identifiers to network services. The definition of such
services falls outside the scope of the "info" URI scheme.
Registration does not define namespace-specific semantics for
identifiers within a registered namespace, though allowable character
sets and normalization rules are specified in Sections 4 and 5 so as
to ensure that the URIs created using such identifiers are compliant
with applications that use URIs.
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
The registration of a public namespace in the "info" Registry SHALL
NOT preclude further development of services associated with that
namespace that MAY qualify the namespace for additional publication
elsewhere within the URI allocation.
3. The "info" Registry
The "info" Registry provides a mechanism for the registration of
public namespaces that are used for the identification of information
assets and that are not part of the URI allocation.
NISO [NISO], the National Information Standards Organization, will
act as the Maintenance Agency for the "info" Registry and will
delegate the day-to-day operation of the "info" Registry to a
Registry Operator. As the Maintenance Agency, NISO will ensure that
the Registry Operator operates the "info" Registry in accordance with
a publicly articulated policy document established under NISO
governance and made available on the "info" website,
<http://info-uri.info/>. The "info" Registry policy defines a review
process for candidate namespaces and provides measures of quality
control and suitability for entry of namespaces.
3.1. Management Characteristics of the "info" Registry
The "info" Registry will be managed according to policies established
under the auspices of NISO. All such policies, as well as the
namespace declarations in the "info" Registry, will be public.
3.2. Functional Characteristics of the "info" Registry
The "info" Registry will be publicly accessible and will support
discovery (by both humans and machines) of:
o string literals identifying the namespaces for which the Registry
provides a guarantee of uniqueness and persistence
o names and contact information of Namespace Authorities
o syntax requirements for identifiers maintained in such namespaces
o normalization methodologies for identifiers maintained in such
namespaces
o network references to a description of service mechanisms (if any)
for identifiers maintained in such namespaces
o ancillary documentation
Registry entries refer to the corresponding "namespace" and
"identifier" components, which are defined in the ABNF given in
Section 4.1 of this document.
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
3.3. Maintenance of the "info" Registry
The public namespaces that MAY be registered in the "info" Registry
will be those of interest to the communities served by NISO, and
therefore NISO is committed to act as Maintenance Authority for the
"info" Registry and to assign a Registry Operator to operate it.
NISO, a non-profit association accredited by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), identifies, develops, maintains, and
publishes technical standards to manage information in the digital
environment. NISO standards apply technologies to the full range of
information-related needs, including retrieval, re-purposing,
storage, metadata, and preservation.
Founded in 1939, incorporated as a not-for-profit education
association in 1983, and assuming its current name the following
year, NISO draws its support from the communities it serves. The
leaders of over 70 organizations in the fields of publishing,
libraries, IT, and media serve as its voting members. Hundreds of
experts and practitioners serve on NISO committees and as officers of
the association.
NISO has been designated by ANSI to represent US interests to the
International Organization for Standardization's (ISO) Technical
Committee 46 on Information and Documentation.
The NISO headquarters office is located at 4733 Bethesda Ave.,
Bethesda, MD 20814, USA. (For further information, see the NISO
website, <http://www.niso.org/>.)
4. The "info" URI Scheme
4.1. Definition of "info" URI Syntax
The "info" URI syntax presented in this document is conformant with
the generic URI syntax defined in RFC 3986 [RFC3986]. This
specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of
RFC 4234 [RFC4234] to define the URI. The following core ABNF
productions are used by this specification as defined by Appendix B.1
of RFC 4234: ALPHA, DIGIT, HEXDIG.
The "info" URI syntax is presented in two parts. Part A contains
productions specific to the "info" URI scheme, while Part B contains
generic productions from RFC 3986 [RFC3986], which are repeated here
both for completeness and for reference. The following set of
productions (Part A) is specific to the "info" URI scheme:
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
; Part A:
; productions specific to the "info" URI scheme
info-URI = info-scheme ":" info-identifier [ "#" fragment ]
info-scheme = "info"
info-identifier = namespace "/" identifier
namespace = scheme
identifier = *( pchar / "/" )
; Note that "info" URIs containing dot-segments (i.e., segments
; whose full content consists of "." or "..") MAY NOT be suitable
; for use with applications that perform dot-segment normalization
This next set of productions (Part B) are generic productions
reproduced from RFC 3986 [RFC3986]:
; Part B:
; generic productions from RFC 3986 [RFC3986]
scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." )
pchar = unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" / "@"
fragment = *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~"
pct-encoded = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG
sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")"
/ "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "="
An "info" URI has an "info-identifier" as its scheme-specific part
and MAY take an optional "fragment" component. An "info-identifier"
is constructed by appending an "identifier" component to a
"namespace" component separated by a slash "/" character. The "info"
URI scheme is supportive of hierarchical processing as indicated by
the presence of the slash "/" character, although the slash "/"
character SHOULD NOT be interpreted as a strict hierarchy delimiter.
Values for the "namespace" component of the "info" URI are name
tokens composed of URI scheme characters only (cf. the "scheme"
production). They identify the public namespace in which the
(unescaped) value for the "identifier" component originates, and are
registered in the "info" Registry, which guarantees their uniqueness
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
and persistence. Although the "namespace" component is
case-insensitive, the canonical form is lowercase and documents that
specify values for the "namespace" component SHOULD do so using
lowercase letters. An implementation SHOULD accept uppercase letters
as equivalent to lowercase in "namespace" names, for the sake of
robustness, but SHOULD only generate lowercase "namespace" names, for
consistency.
Values for the "identifier" component of the "info" URI MAY be viewed
as being hierarchical strings composed of path segments built from
path segment characters (cf. the "pchar" production), the segments
being separated by slash "/" characters, although any semantic
interpretation of the "/" character as a hierarchy delimiter MUST NOT
be assumed. In their originating public namespace, the (unescaped)
values for the "identifier" component identify information assets.
The values for the "identifier" component MUST be %-escaped as
required by this syntax. The "identifier" component SHOULD be
treated as case-sensitive, although the "info" Registry MAY record
the case-sensitivity of identifiers from particular registered public
namespaces. The "info" Registry MAY also disclose additional
normalization rules regarding the treatment of punctuation characters
and the like.
Values for the "fragment" component of the "info" URI are strings
composed of path segment characters (cf. the "pchar" production) plus
the slash "/" character and the question mark "?" character. No
semantic role is assigned to the slash "/" character and the question
mark "?" character within the "fragment" component. The (unescaped)
values for the "fragment" component identify secondary information
assets with respect to the primary information asset, which is
referenced by the "info-identifier". The values for the "fragment"
component MUST be %-escaped as required by this syntax. The
"fragment" component MUST be treated as being case-sensitive.
4.2. Allowed Characters Under the "info" URI Scheme
The "info" URI syntax uses the same set of allowed US-ASCII
characters as specified in RFC 3986 [RFC3986] for a generic URI. An
"info" URI string SHOULD be represented as a Unicode [UNICODE] string
and be encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629] form. Reserved characters as well
as excluded US-ASCII characters and non-US-ASCII characters MUST be
%-escaped before forming the URI. Details of the %-escape encoding
can be found in RFC 3986 [RFC3986], Section 2.4.
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
4.3. Examples of "info" URIs
Some examples of syntactically valid "info" URIs are given below:
a) info:ddc/22/eng//004.678
where "ddc" is the "namespace" component for a Dewey Decimal
Classification [DEWEY] namespace and "22/eng//004.678" is the
"identifier" component for an identifier of an information asset
within that namespace.
The information asset identified by the identifier "22/eng//004.678"
in the namespace for (22nd Ed.) English-language Dewey Decimal
Classifications is the classification
"Internet"
b) info:lccn/2002022641
where "lccn" is the "namespace" component for a Library of Congress
Control Number [LCCN] namespace and "2002022641" is the "identifier"
component for an identifier of an information asset within that
namespace.
The information asset identified by the identifier "2002022641" in
the namespace for Library of Congress Control Numbers is the metadata
record
"Newcomer, Eric. Understanding Web services: XML, WSDL,
SOAP, and UDDI. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2002."
c) info:sici/0363-0277(19950315)120:5%3C%3E1.0.TX;2-V
where "sici" is the "namespace" component for a Serial Item and
Contribution Identifier [SICI] namespace and
"0363-0277(19950315)120:5%3C%3E1.0.TX;2-V" is the "identifier"
component for an identifier of an information asset in that namespace
in %-escaped form, or in unescaped form
"0363-0277(19950315)120:5<>1.0.TX;2-V".
The information asset identified by the identifier
"0363-0277(19950315)120:5<>1.0.TX;2-V" in the namespace for Serial
Item and Contribution Identifiers is the journal issue
"Library Journal, Vol. 120, no. 5. March 15, 1995."
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
d) <rdf:Description about="info:bibcode/2003Icar..163..263Z"/>
where "bibcode" is the "namespace" component for a NASA Astrophysics
Data System (ADS) Bibcode [BIBCODE] namespace and
"2003Icar..163..263Z" is the "identifier" component for an identifier
of an information asset within that namespace. This example further
shows an application of an "info" URI as the subject of a Resource
Description Framework (RDF) statement.
The information asset identified by the identifier
"2003Icar..163..263Z" in the namespace for NASA ADS Bibcodes is the
metadata record in the ADS system that describes the journal article
"K. Zahnle, P. Schenk, H. Levison and L. Dones, Cratering rates
in the outer Solar System, Icarus, 163 (2003) pp. 263-289."
e) info:pmid/12376099
where "pmid" is the "namespace" component for a PubMed Identifier
[PMID] namespace and "12376099" is the "identifier" component for an
identifier of an information asset in that namespace.
The information asset identified by the identifier "12376099" in the
namespace for PubMed Identifiers is the metadata record in the PubMed
database that describes the journal article
"Wijesuriya SD, Bristow J, Miller WL. Localization and analysis
of the principal promoter for human tenascin-X. Genomics. 2002
Oct;80(4):443-52."
5. Normalization and Comparison of "info" URIs
In order to facilitate comparison of "info" URIs, a sequence of
normalization steps SHOULD be applied as detailed below. After
normalizing the URI strings, comparison of two "info" URIs is then
applied on a character-by-character basis as prescribed by RFC 3986
[RFC3986], Section 6.2.1.
The following generic normalization steps SHOULD anyway be applied by
applications processing "info" URIs:
a) Normalize the case of the "scheme" component to be
lowercase
b) Normalize the case of the "namespace" component to be
lowercase
c) Unescape all unreserved %-escaped characters in the
"namespace" and "identifier" components
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
d) Normalize the case of any %-escaped characters in the
"namespace" and "identifier" components to be
uppercase
Further normalization steps MAY be applied by applications to "info"
URIs based on rules recorded in the "info" Registry for a registered
public namespace, but such normalization steps remain outside of the
scope of the "info" URI definition.
Since the "info" URI SHOULD be treated as being case-sensitive, a
canonical form MAY only be arrived at by consulting the "info"
Registry for possible information on the case-sensitivity for
identifiers from a registered public namespace, and any case
normalization step to apply. The "info" Registry MAY also disclose
additional normalization rules regarding the treatment of punctuation
characters and the like.
In cases, however, where no single canonical form of the "identifier"
component exists, it is nevertheless RECOMMENDED that a Namespace
Authority nominate a preferred form, which SHOULD be used wherever
possible within an "info" URI so that applications MAY have an
increased chance of successful comparison of two "info" URIs.
Note that "info" URIs containing dot-segments (i.e., segments whose
full content consists of "." or "..") MAY NOT be suitable for use
with applications that perform dot-segment normalization.
The following unnormalized forms of an "info" URI
U1. INFO:PII/S0888-7543(02)96852-7
U2. info:PII/S0888754302968527
U3. info:pii/S0888%2D7543%2802%2996852%2D7
U4. info:pii/s0888-7543(02)96852-7
are normalized to the following respective forms
N1. info:pii/S0888-7543(02)96852-7
N2. info:pii/S0888754302968527
N3. info:pii/S0888-7543(02)96852-7
N4. info:pii/s0888-7543(02)96852-7
The "info" URI definition does not prescribe further normalization
steps, although applications MAY apply additional normalization steps
according to any rules recorded in the "info" Registry for a
registered public namespace.
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
6. Rationale
6.1. Why Create a New URI Scheme for Identifiers from Public
Namespaces?
Under RFC 4395, "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI
Schemes" [RFC4395], it is stated in Section 2.1 "Demonstrable, New,
Long-Lived Utility" that "New URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility
to the broad Internet community, beyond that available with already
registered URI schemes". The "info" URI scheme allows identifiers
within public namespaces, used for the identification of information
assets, to be referred to within the URI allocation. Once a
namespace is registered in the "info" Registry, the "info" URI scheme
enables an information asset with an identifier in that namespace to
be referenced by means of a URI. As a result, the information asset
SHALL be considered a resource as defined in RFC 3986 [RFC3986] and
SHALL enjoy the same common syntactic, semantic, and shared language
benefits that the URI presentation confers.
6.2. Why Not Use an Existing URI Scheme for Identifiers from Public
Namespaces?
Existing URI schemes are not suitable for employment as the "info"
URI scheme admits of no global dereference mechanism. While examples
of resource identifiers minted under other URI schemes MAY not always
be dereferenceable, nevertheless there is always a common expectation
that such URIs can be dereferenced by various resolution mechanisms,
whether they be location-dependent or location-independent resource
identifiers. The "info" URI scheme applies to a class of resource
identifiers whose Namespace Authorities MAY or MAY NOT choose to
disclose service mechanisms. Nevertheless, Namespace Authorities are
encouraged to disclose in the "info" registration record references
to any such service mechanisms in order to provide a greater utility
to network applications.
6.3. Why Not Create a New URN Namespace ID for Identifiers from Public
Namespaces?
RFC 2141 [RFC2141] states that "Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are
intended to serve as persistent, location-independent, resource
identifiers". The "info" URI scheme, on the other hand, does not
assert the persistence of the identifiers created under this scheme
but rather of the public namespaces grandfathered under this scheme.
It exists primarily to disclose the identity of information assets
and to facilitate a lightweight registration mechanism for public
namespaces of identifiers managed according to the policies and
business models of the Namespace Authorities. The "info" URI scheme
is neutral with respect to identifier persistence. Moreover, for
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
"info" to operate as a URN Network Identifier (NID) would require
that "info" be constituted as a delegated naming authority. It is
not clear that a URN NID would be an appropriate choice for naming
authority delegation.
Further, the "info" URI scheme is not globally dereferenceable in
contrast to the specific recommendation given in RFC 1737,
"Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names" [RFC1737] that
"It is strongly recommended that there be a mapping between the names
generated by each naming authority and URLs". Individual Namespace
Authorities registered in the "info" Registry MAY, however, disclose
references to service mechanisms and are encouraged to do so.
An extra consideration is that the "urn" URI syntax explicitly
excludes generic URI hierarchy by reserving the slash "/" character.
An "info" URI, on the other hand, admits of hierarchical processing,
while remaining neutral with respect to supporting actual hierarchy,
and thus allows the slash "/" character (as well as more liberally
allowing the ampersand "&" and tilde "~" characters). It therefore
represents a lower barrier to entry for Namespace Authorities in
keeping with its intention of acting as a bridging mechanism to allow
public namespaces to become part of the URI allocation. In sum, an
"info" URI is more widely supportive of "human transcribability" as
discussed in RFC 3986 [RFC3986] than is a "urn" URI.
Additionally, the "urn" URI syntax does not support "fragment"
components as does the "info" URI syntax for indirect identification
of secondary resources.
7. Security Considerations
The "info" URI scheme syntax is subject to the same security
considerations as the generic URI syntax described in RFC 3986
[RFC3986].
While some "info" Namespace Authorities MAY choose to disclose
service mechanisms, any security considerations resulting from the
execution of such services fall outside the scope of this document.
It is strongly recommended that the registration record of an "info"
namespace include any such considerations.
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
8. IANA Considerations
The IANA registry for URI schemes
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html> SHOULD be updated
to include an entry for the "info" URI scheme when the "info" URI
scheme is accepted for publication as an RFC. This entry SHOULD
contain the following values:
Scheme Name: info
Description: Information Assets with Identifiers in Public
Namespaces
Reference: RFC 4452
9. Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the contributions of Michael Mealling,
Verisign, and Patrick Hochstenbach, Ghent University.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC1737] Sollins, K. and L. Masinter, "Functional Requirements for
Uniform Resource Names", RFC 1737, December 1994.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
[RFC4395] Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", BCP 115, RFC
4395, February 2006.
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
4.0.0, defined by: The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0".
(Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2003). ISBN 0-321-18578-1.
10.2. Informative References
[BIBCODE] "NASA Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Code",
<http://adsdoc.harvard.edu/abs_doc/help_pages/data.html>.
[DEWEY] "Dewey Decimal Classification",
<http://www.oclc.org/dewey/>.
[LCCN] "Library of Congress Control Number",
<http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/lccn_structure.html>.
[NISO] "National Information Standards Organization",
<http://www.niso.org/>.
[OCLCNUM] "Online Computer Library Center OCLC Control Number",
<http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/oclc.shtm>.
[OFI] "ANSI/NISO Z39.88-2004, "The OpenURL Framework for
Context-Sensitive Services", ISBN 1-880124-61-0",
<http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39_88_2004.pdf>.
[PMID] "PubMed Overview", <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/
query/static/overview.html>.
[SICI] "ANSI/NISO Z39.56-1996 (R2002), "Serial Item and
Contribution Identifier (SICI)", ISBN 1-880124-28-9",
<http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-56.pdf>.
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
Authors' Addresses
Herbert Van de Sompel
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Research Library, MS-P362
PO Box 1663
Los Alamos, NM 87545-1362
USA
EMail: herbertv@lanl.gov
Tony Hammond
Nature Publishing Group
Macmillan House
4 Crinan Street
London N1 9XW
UK
EMail: t.hammond@nature.com
Eamonn Neylon
Manifest Solutions
Bicester, Oxfordshire OX26 2HX
UK
EMail: eneylon@manifestsolutions.com
Stuart L. Weibel
OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
6565 Frantz Road
Dublin, OH 43017-3395
USA
EMail: weibel@oclc.org
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 4452 The "info" URI Scheme April 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Van de Sompel, et al. Informational [Page 17]