Hi All,

Though hesitant to jump in here, I agree with Owen that the dead ends aren't a standards issue. The bloat of the standard is, as is the lack of a standardized response format, but the dead ends have to do with bad metadata being coded into open-URLs and with breakdowns in the connection between content aggregators/providers and knowledge base maintainers.

Work in this area isn't completely stagnant, though. The joint NISO/UK Serials Group's "Knowledge Bases And Related Tools working group" is looking towards solutions to exactly these problems.

Their initial report on best practice for content providers and KB maintainers is worth a look.


Owen Stephens wrote:
Dead ends from OpenURL enabled hyperlinks aren't a result of the standard
though, but rather an aspect of both the problem they are trying to solve,
and the conceptual way they try to do this.

I'd content these dead ends are an implementation issue - and despite this I
have to say that my experience on the ground is that feedback from library
users on the use of link resolvers is positive - much more so than many of
the other library systems I've been involved with.

What I do see as a problem is that this market seems to have essentially
stagnated, at least as far as I can see. I suspect the reasons for this are
complex, but it would be nice to see some more innovation in this area.


On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Ed Summers <e...@pobox.com> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Eric Hellman <e...@hellman.net> wrote:
Since this thread has turned into a discussion on OpenURL...

I have to say that during the OpenURL 1.0 standardization process, we
definitely had moments of despair. Today, I'm willing to derive satisfaction
from "it works" and overlook shortcomings. It might have been otherwise.

Personally, I've followed enough OpenURL enabled hyperlink dead ends
to contest "it works".


Corey A Harper
Metadata Services Librarian
New York University Libraries
20 Cooper Square, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10003-7112

Reply via email to