So does anybody remember the posting DOIs and Linked Data: Some Concrete Proposals? Well, we went with option “D.” From now on, DOIs, expressed as HTTP URIs , can be used with content-negotiation. Let’s get straight to the point.

Announcements regarding Crossref system status or changes are posted in an Announcements forum on our support portal (http://support.crossref.org). We recommend that someone from your organization monitor this forum to stay informed about Crossref system status, schema changes, or other issues affecting deposits and queries.

While working on an internal project, we developed “pdfstamp“, a command-line tool that allows one to easily apply linked images to PDFs. We thought some in our community might find it useful and have released it on github. Some more PDF-related tools will follow soon.

Just a quick heads-up to say that we’ve had a go at incorporating InChIs and ontology terms into our PDFs with XMP. There isn’t a lot of room in an XMP packet so we’ve had to be a bit particular about what we include. InChIs: the bigger the molecule the longer the InChI, so we’ve standardized on the fixed-length InChIKey. This doesn’t mean anything on its own, so we’ve gone the Semantic Web route of including an InChI resolver HTTP URI.

Since I’ve already blogged about this a number of times before here, I thought I ought to include a link to a fuller writeup in this month’s D-Lib Magazine of our nature.com OpenSearch service which serves as a case study in OpenSearch and SRU integration: doi:10.1045/july2010-hammond

(Click image for full size graphic.) I thought I could take this opportunity to demonstrate one evolution path from traditional record-based search to a more contemporary triple-based search. The aim is to show that these two modes of search do not have to be alternative approaches but can co-exist within a single workflow.

Since last month’s threads (here, here, here and here) talking about the issues involved in making the DOI a first-class identifier for linked data applications, I’ve had the chance to actually sit down with some of the thread’s participants (Tony Hammond, Leigh Dodds, Norman Paskin) and we’ve been able sketch-out some possible scenarios for migrating the DOI into a linked data world.

(This post is just a repost of a comment to Geoff’s last entry made because it’s already rather long, because it contains one original thought - FRBR as OSI - and because, well, it didn’t really want to wait for moderation.) Hi Geoff: First off, there is no question but that Crossref was established to take on the reference linking challenge for scholarly literature.

Tony’s recent thread on making DOIs play nicely in a linked data world has raised an issue I’ve meant to discuss here for some time- a lot of the thread is predicated on the idea that Crossref DOIs are applied at the abstract “work” level. Indeed, that it what it currently says in our guidelines. Unfortunately, this is a case where theory, practice and documentation all diverge.

( Update - 2010.02.10: I just saw that I posted here on this same topic over a year ago. Oh well, I guess this is a perennial.) I am opening a new entry to pick up one point that John Erickson made in his last comment to the previous entry: Yea! It might be worth consulting the latest Crossref DOI Name Information and Guidelines to see what that has to say about this.

(Click image for full size graphic.) Following the JISC seminar last week on persistent identifiers (#jiscpid on Twitter) there was some discussion about DOI and its role within a Linked Data context.