Subject: Closed vs. Open Identifier Systems

From: Rob Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 05:42:51 -0700

Norman Paskin questions the fairness of terms "closed" and
"open" as used to characterizate document identifiers (and
their associated resolution/metadata systems).  He would
prefer distinctions using the more obscure term "affordance".

In outlining the distinctions between the DOI approach and
that of Bibliographic Protocol/USINs (see http://usin.org ),
there are several dimensions along which the closed/open
terminology is appropriate.

(1)  Creation.   Librarians and scholars are free to
     determine USINs based on publication data.  DOIs are
     closed to this possibility.

(2)  Coverage.  The space of items denoted by DOIs may be
     fairly described as closed: restricted to those articles
     registered by rightsholders.   This is a substantially
     smaller space than that for which USINs exist now and
     will remain so for the forseeable future.

(3)  Resolution.  The BibP/USIN framework is open to (and
     designed for) independent, interoperable resolution
     services deployed by libraries, document supply services,
     publishers and others.  The DOI framework has a closed
     resolution model.

(4)  Metadata production/association.  The BibP/USIN framework
     is open to the independent development of article
     metadata from many sources.   Abstracting and indexing
     services as well as subject bibliographers can freely
     participate.

(5)  Metaservice identification.   The BibP/USIN framework
     anticipates a free market of document metaservices
     (document delivery, translation, classification and
     so on), subject only to operation within the legal
     frameworks for intellectual property (copyright
     clearance and so on).  This is not a goal of the DOI
     system.

Finally, I recognize Norman's point that "open/closed"
distinctions carry "free/proprietary" and "good/bad"
connotations.  Frankly, I think there are some elements of
truth and clarity here and I hope to use the connotations
to capture some "mind share" for the BibP/USIN work.
The DOI/CrossRef  initiative has such a substantial lead
in mindshare that it ought to have little to fear from
our work - unless of course, there is substance to it.

Robert D. Cameron
Professor of Computing Science
Simon Fraser University
BibP/USIN Project
http://usin.org/