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

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

Reply via email to