At #ldow2010 on Tuesday there was a presentation on "semantic" Twitter via TwitLogic:

You can download the full paper if you're really curious:

Twitter Annotations system was mentioned at the end as a possible side option. There's bound to be a good bit of talk in the Linked Data community on strapping RDF/RDFa into Twitter Annotations, but I believe that's still beginning.

Additionally (as someone outside of the library community proper), OpenURL's dependence on resolvers would be the largest concern. Anyone could build similar "real thing" URL's and use 303 See Other redirects to return one or more digital resources about that "real thing." See this for more information:

Enjoy the reads,

P: 864.232.9553

On 4/29/10 10:32 AM, Rosalyn Metz wrote:
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<>  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?


Reply via email to