Notes

@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (6/N) (FTR- I think use of the term "ownership" in the context of identifiers -personal or otherwise- is anathema. But that is another rant.)

@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (5/N) This is an important characteristic because we *rent* domains, we don't "own" them.

@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (4/N) A URI that points directly to a domain that has expired or changed hands cannot be re-pointed in this way.

@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (3/N) But the indirection of pointers makes PIDs more "persistable" (a term I favour over “persistent”). Yes, a DOI might break, but it can be fixed by re-pointing it.

@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (2/N) Plain URIs as PIDs pose problems when content moves between domains. Redirectable URIs (e.g. DOIs, Handles, ARKs) are just pointers.