do i >

1. Digital Object Identifier Syntax and NISO IDF meeting Bologna 2005 doi>

2. DOI Syntax doi> • DOI Syntax is a NISO Standard, Z39.84 (2000) • All NISO standards have a five-year review cycle • At review stage, we took the opportunity to submit a revision • Revision requires formal vote etc • Standard is in three main sections: forward, syntax, and appendices, • only the syntax is the formal standard and the others supplementary • Rewritten with review by TWG, RAWG

3. Changes in 2005 version doi> • Forward: substantially re-written. Earlier version was no longer appropriate, as it was written pre-IDF and early IDF days: no coverage of other aspects such as DOI metadata which had since developed considerably. • Appendices: largely unchanged. Updated references (notably to include the three approved RFCs for the Handle system) and removed many of those earlier cited as in development, and many of the identifier standards (ISSN etc) and others which are not directly relevant. • Syntax revisions • reference to Unicode updated to the current version. • added some explanation to the comment that DOIs have no length restriction. • revised “case insensitivity”. the practical implementation of DOI did not follow the written “case sensitive” standard. • 2000 DOI syntax standard allows DOI suffixes to be case sensitive, i.e. 10.123/ABC as completely different to 10.123/AbC and the two are different identifiers (allowable in HDL configuration). • IDF imposed the further parameter on the specification, to remove case sensitivity, after a detailed review of the consequences (Handbook 2.6). • As this restriction has been implemented from an early stage, and only IDF assigns DOIs, we have not introduced any cases of two DOIs distinguishable only by ASCII case resolving to the same thing • Hence 2005 standard is fully backward-compatible with 2000+ implementations

4. doi> Timetable • January 2005: submitted to NISO • Sent out for ballot • April 2005: ballot closes but insufficient for quorum: • NISO sent out reminders • June 2005: final ballot report received: • 49 Total ballots returned • 47 Yesof which 5 with comments – Assn of Information and Dissemination Ctrs (ASIDIC), CrossRef, Library of Congress, Medical Library Association, National Library of Medicine (NLM) • 1  No • 1  Abstain with comment • 1  Comment from “Other Interested Parties” (CDI)

5. doi> Response • July 2005: Respond to all comments within six weeks: • “No” must be dealt with: • “It is imperative that you respond to the negative vote. If the negative can be changed to an Abstention or an Approval that is the best-case-scenario. If that is not possible then the standard can be advanced following a default ballot of the membership.” • The No is because of a technical issue with Unicode and proposes an alternative wording – we accept the proposed wording and think it is an improvement so should not be a problem • The other comments are to be responded to as a courtesy. Many are editorial suggestions. • The abstention with comment was due to a misunderstanding of the NISO process – NISO are responding directly • We do not expect any problems in proceeding

6. doi> n.paskin@doi.org www.doi.org