[rfc-i] I-D Action: draft-flanagan-nonascii-01.txt
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Apr 28 15:54:37 PDT 2014
On 29/04/2014 04:43, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> On 4/28/14 9:54 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>>> I think it is an interesting idea to use a URN for RFC authors, but I do
>>> not think that the URN should be urn:ietf:author... There are many RFCs
>>> that are not part of the IETF Stream.
>> It could allow *any* URN (or *any* URI), with the ietf issuing URNs to any
>> potential author who wants one.
> Or the RFC-Editor could provide the relevant namespace.
> We still _also_ need ORCIDs (yes, they are ugly). And a lookup
> service for any author URNs (i.e., they need to be URLs, but lets not
> bring that discussion here), which I'm sure the RFC-Editor won't want
> to run.
> Are ORCID URIs resolvable to machine parseable results? Yes, there is
> an API that uses XML. It took a while to find it... Here's the
> 1.2_rc4 XSD:
> I can't say I'm a fan of ORCIDs, but, a) I suspect it's unlikely that
> we'll bother setting up something "better", b) whatever, I'll take
> ORCIDs over nothing.
Their goal is right. However, so far I haven't managed to import
my existing publications info into ORCID; they don't have a button
for importing plain BibTeX, which is a major gap. Until I can do that,
my ORCID record is pointless.
More information about the rfc-interest