On Apr 5, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Matthias Steffens wrote:
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?
Like I said, some are easier than others. There are other identifiers
for this stuff though (SICI, etc.) that we'd have to fall back on, and
where not we'd have to use some other conventions (maybe openurl).
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.
Hold on now; the user *may* be important, but not the user-specific key.
If I ping a server and give a list of isbns and dois and an optional
username, problem solved; no?
Bruce
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
