On Wed, 5-Apr-2006 09:13 -0400, Bruce D'arcus Wrote:
> Bingo, Which Is Why We Need To Find A Way To Use Standardized Uris
> Where Possible To Define Citation Keys. In Some Cases (Dois, Isbns,
> Etc.) This Is Easier Than Others, But The Pay-Off Will Be Large. If
> My Citation Key In The Document Is Identified With
> "Urn:Isbn:32343545" It's Trivial To Grab The Associate Bib Record
> From Many Sources. If It's Some User-Specific Key ("Smith99") Or
> Local Database Number, Then Stuff Breaks.
Agreed. But how would you handle entries which have no ISBN, DOI or
other unique identifier? I guess that OpenURLs could be used for older
journal articles? But what about items that cannot be identified by
means of the above, how would you handle these?
Also, how do you account for duplicate database entries where only one
of these duplicates is the user's desired record. In institutional
databases, duplicate entries are not uncommon and their accuracy or
quality may differ substantially. Thus, it *does* matter which of these
copies you fetch. User-specific keys as well as local database numbers
would solve this particular problem.
I fully agree that database-independent keys should be preferred but I
think that the issue is more complex than it may seem initially.
Passing database-independent keys *as well as* database-specific keys
could be a solution.
Matthias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
