I'm going to throw in my two cents. I dont think (and correct me if i'm wrong) we have mentioned once what a user might actually put in a twitter annotation. a book title? an article title? a link?
i think creating some super complicated thing for a twitter annotation dooms it to failure. after all, its twitter...make it short and sweet. also the 1.0 document for OpenURL isn't really that bad (yes I have read it). a good portion of it is a chart with the different metadata elements. also open url could conceivably refer to an animal and then link to a bunch of resources on that animal, but no one has done that. i don't think that's a problem with OpenURL i think thats a problem with the metadata sent by vendors to link resolvers and librarians lack of creativity (yes i did make a ridiculous generalization that was not intended to offend anyone but inevitably it will). having been a vendor who has worked with openurl, i know that the informaiton databases send seriously effects (affects?) what you can actually do in a link resolver. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Tim Spalding <t...@librarything.com> wrote: > Can we just hold a vote or something? > > I'm happy to do whatever the community here wants and will actually > use. I want to do something that will be usable by others. I also > favor something dead simple, so it will be implemented. If we don't > reach some sort of conclusion, this is an interesting waste of time. I > propose only people engaged in doing something along these lines get > to vote? > > Tim >