> What I hope for is that OpenURL 1.0 eventually takes a place alongside SGML 
> as a too-complex standard that directly paves the way for a universally 
> adopted foundational technology like XML. What I fear is that it takes a 
> place alongside MARC as an anachronistic standard that paralyzes an entire 
> industry. 

Hear hear.

I'm actually encouraged by Benjamin's linking (har har) to the httpRange-14 
issue as being relevant to the concept of "link resolution", or at least 
redirection (indirection?) using URL surrogates for resources.  Many are 
critical of the TAG's "resolution" (har har har) of the issue, and think it 
places too much on the 303 redirect.

I'm afraid I still don't understand the issue fully enough to comment — though 
I'd love to hear from any who can.  I agree with Eric's hope that the library 
world can look to W3C's thinking to inform a "better way" forward for link 
resolving, though.

Which causes me to wonder whether I should mention some disturbing research 
we're finding within PKP that using identifiers (DOIs, Purls, Handles) for 
resolving resources (notably journal articles) actually *decreases* search 
engine relevance because most link resolvers (including CrossRef) use 302 
redirects instead of 303s, which Google "ignores" (but some suspect treats as 
spam, and thus demotes the target domain).

Actually, no, I won't mention that.  Carry on.

MJ

Reply via email to