3 ms·

IPFS (and other technologies like it) are essentially just distributed DOIs, which are extremely functional and have been used for years, yet get very little ap

by koeng 5y ago

IPFS (and other technologies like it) are essentially just distributed DOIs, which are extremely functional and have been used for years, yet get very little appreciation in tech field.

detaro 5y ago
The "just distributed" is the interesting bit though. DOIs are really the same as URLs, except the lookup doesn't use DNS.
- jiggunjer 5y ago
  I think DOI is essentially a URI schema. I don't think there is a technical reason preventing them from being distributed like IPFS, in fact the underlying resources are distributed it's just the URL lookup that is centralized.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    Yes, it is a URI schema. FAQ #11, at https://www.doi.org/faq.html https://www.doi.org/faq.html > DOI & URI: how does the DOI system work with web URI technologies? > DOI names may be expressed as URLs (URIs) through a HTTP proxy server. In addition, DOI is a registered URI within the info-URI namespace (IETF RFC 4452, the "info" URI Scheme for Information Assets with Identifiers in Public Namespaces). See the DOI Handbook, 2 Numbering and 3 Resolution, for more information. I know little about IPFS. I know a bit more about DOIs. A DOI maps more to an abstract, mutable resource than a specific document or file. That doesn't seem so easy to express in IPFS. Take doi:10.1093/nar/gkz173 which I picked arbitrarily. This resolves to https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/47/11/e63/5377471 https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/47/11/e63/5377471 . That shows the content of the paper in HTML, with an option to download in PDF. It also has references to the journal issue, methods to get the citation in various format, a navigation bar for the site, and branding for the journal. Many of these may change over time. Indeed, the paper itself may change if there are any updates or corrections, without changing the DOI. Or the paper might be retracted, like doi:10.1126/scisignal.abn0168 which resolves to https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.abn0168 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.abn0168 . The original paper is no longer accessible. (An alternative is to add the equivalent of a big red stamp on it saying "RETRACTED" while leaving the content accessible.) Finally, I suspect many journals would not accept a scheme which prevents them from charging for access. Could you explain how IPFS might handle these issues of multiple formats, mutability, and payment?
    - drdeca 5y ago
      Well, you could still use the multi-hash thing for the identifiers without distributing them on IPFS, though it would make it much more convenient for people to pirate them, because then people wouldn’t have to look up “what is the multihash for the thing with this doi?” before requesting it on ipfs.
    - teorema 5y ago
      re: mutability you just have the standard be that the document being linked to is a sort of wrapper to the actual one. My guess is this is really what's going on with doi anyway. But you're correct that the mutability issue is sort of a tricky one. There's this from IPFS about mutability: https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/file-systems/#mutable-file-system-mfs https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/file-systems/#mutable-file-sys...
    - jamessb 5y ago
      > The original paper is no longer accessible. (An alternative is to add the equivalent of a big red stamp on it saying "RETRACTED" while leaving the content accessible.) I think you are slightly confused - the "alternative" that you describe is actually what happened in this case (and in all the cases of retracted papers that I've encountered). A Retraction Notice has been published at a separate publication [1] with its own DOI, and it cites the original paper [2]. The original paper [2] has been updated to indicate that it has been retracted. In the HTML version, there is an orange banner saying "This article has been retracted". In the PDF version [3] there is a red header, and the retraction notice has been appended as an extra page. But you are correct that it is important to be able to update PDFs if a significant mistake (or deliberate fraud) is identified. [1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.abn0168 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.abn0168 [2]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.aag1064 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.aag1064 [3]: https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/scisignal.aag1064 https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/scisignal.aag1064
      - eesmith 5y ago
        Indeed. I misread the retraction notice quite severely. Thank you for the correction. As an alternative example, I searched Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/09/23/alzheimers-diagnosis-paper-retracted-for-failure-to-disclose-conflicts-of-interest-other-issues/ https://retractionwatch.com/2021/09/23/alzheimers-diagnosis-... describes the paper: > “Intracranial pressure waveform changes in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment” — which now seems to have disappeared entirely from the journal’s site — appeared in Surgical Neurology International in July. It points out the paper is still in PubMed Central, at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8168790/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8168790/ . However, its DOI, 10.25259/SNI_48_2021 , redirects to a 404 page from the journal.

by koeng 5y ago

IPFS (and other technologies like it) are essentially just distributed DOIs, which are extremely functional and have been used for years, yet get very little appreciation in tech field.

detaro 5y ago

The "just distributed" is the interesting bit though. DOIs are really the same as URLs, except the lookup doesn't use DNS.

jiggunjer 5y ago
I think DOI is essentially a URI schema. I don't think there is a technical reason preventing them from being distributed like IPFS, in fact the underlying resources are distributed it's just the URL lookup that is centralized.
- eesmith 5y ago
  Yes, it is a URI schema. FAQ #11, at https://www.doi.org/faq.html https://www.doi.org/faq.html > DOI & URI: how does the DOI system work with web URI technologies? > DOI names may be expressed as URLs (URIs) through a HTTP proxy server. In addition, DOI is a registered URI within the info-URI namespace (IETF RFC 4452, the "info" URI Scheme for Information Assets with Identifiers in Public Namespaces). See the DOI Handbook, 2 Numbering and 3 Resolution, for more information. I know little about IPFS. I know a bit more about DOIs. A DOI maps more to an abstract, mutable resource than a specific document or file. That doesn't seem so easy to express in IPFS. Take doi:10.1093/nar/gkz173 which I picked arbitrarily. This resolves to https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/47/11/e63/5377471 https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/47/11/e63/5377471 . That shows the content of the paper in HTML, with an option to download in PDF. It also has references to the journal issue, methods to get the citation in various format, a navigation bar for the site, and branding for the journal. Many of these may change over time. Indeed, the paper itself may change if there are any updates or corrections, without changing the DOI. Or the paper might be retracted, like doi:10.1126/scisignal.abn0168 which resolves to https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.abn0168 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.abn0168 . The original paper is no longer accessible. (An alternative is to add the equivalent of a big red stamp on it saying "RETRACTED" while leaving the content accessible.) Finally, I suspect many journals would not accept a scheme which prevents them from charging for access. Could you explain how IPFS might handle these issues of multiple formats, mutability, and payment?
  - drdeca 5y ago
    Well, you could still use the multi-hash thing for the identifiers without distributing them on IPFS, though it would make it much more convenient for people to pirate them, because then people wouldn’t have to look up “what is the multihash for the thing with this doi?” before requesting it on ipfs.
  - teorema 5y ago
    re: mutability you just have the standard be that the document being linked to is a sort of wrapper to the actual one. My guess is this is really what's going on with doi anyway. But you're correct that the mutability issue is sort of a tricky one. There's this from IPFS about mutability: https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/file-systems/#mutable-file-system-mfs https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/file-systems/#mutable-file-sys...
  - jamessb 5y ago
    > The original paper is no longer accessible. (An alternative is to add the equivalent of a big red stamp on it saying "RETRACTED" while leaving the content accessible.) I think you are slightly confused - the "alternative" that you describe is actually what happened in this case (and in all the cases of retracted papers that I've encountered). A Retraction Notice has been published at a separate publication [1] with its own DOI, and it cites the original paper [2]. The original paper [2] has been updated to indicate that it has been retracted. In the HTML version, there is an orange banner saying "This article has been retracted". In the PDF version [3] there is a red header, and the retraction notice has been appended as an extra page. But you are correct that it is important to be able to update PDFs if a significant mistake (or deliberate fraud) is identified. [1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.abn0168 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.abn0168 [2]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.aag1064 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.aag1064 [3]: https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/scisignal.aag1064 https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/scisignal.aag1064
    - eesmith 5y ago
      Indeed. I misread the retraction notice quite severely. Thank you for the correction. As an alternative example, I searched Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/09/23/alzheimers-diagnosis-paper-retracted-for-failure-to-disclose-conflicts-of-interest-other-issues/ https://retractionwatch.com/2021/09/23/alzheimers-diagnosis-... describes the paper: > “Intracranial pressure waveform changes in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment” — which now seems to have disappeared entirely from the journal’s site — appeared in Surgical Neurology International in July. It points out the paper is still in PubMed Central, at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8168790/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8168790/ . However, its DOI, 10.25259/SNI_48_2021 , redirects to a 404 page from the journal.