This odd collection of guidelines makes Webometrics lose credibility in my
book.
i.e. Google / Google Scholar indexing guidelines is all anyone should be
paying attention to.
Regarding #5 (software name in hostname). Should MIT be reconsidering the
use of dspace.mit.edu ?? They have a very good historical reason to
continue using that domain.
#4 (insecure), #6 (four directory levels), #7 (numeric codes) are
especially bizarre.
Is their ideal repository just a url shortening service? And do they oppose
the use of handle/doi, since including those in the url increases the
length. Also, one reason for leaving ssl on all the time is so that nobody
is altering the information being transferred. i.e. You could have an
abusive ISP that alters the response by adding/removing information from a
response. And since the payload is sent in cleartext, this abusive ISP is
able to spy/monitor your activity, and manipulate the result once you
encounter the content their trying to censor. Do you want repositories to
be stuck in the realm of untrustable-repositories? My experience with this
is that the public wifi at a local hospital filters your internet so that
you can't actually look up medical information. (Wouldn't want the public
to be an instant expert, and second guessing the medical staff, I'm
guessing). Solution: Turn on SSL, leave it on, always.
Do they have a proposal to alleviate these issues of "awful naming
proposals by software developers that ignore librarian traditions". I'm
guessing they're also against IPv6, since it makes IP addresses too long to
type, because I'm always typing in IP addresses...
I don't think the internet needs to be rearchitected by well intended folks
at webometrics. Sure, we could look at condensing things to just whats
neccessary, to assist with making a citable link directly to bitstreams.
But isn't that what handles/doi's are for?
________________
Peter Dietz
Longsight
www.longsight.com
[email protected]
p: 740-599-5005 x809
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Mark H. Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
> Points 4, 6 and 7 reveal a profound lack of understanding of
> hypertext and fundamental security issues, and I would not be
> surprised to learn that they ignore typical user behavior as well.
> Does anyone but a sysadmin. or developer really type in direct URLs to
> repository content? Citations please.
>
> I would argue that we can better do without appearing in the "Ranking
> Web of Repositories," whatever that is, than to give up the ability
> to protect our users' credentials. (Point 4, which disallows HTTPS)
>
> Point 5 is just bizarre. Why does someone think this is a problem?
> Not that I think it particularly useful to use the name of supporting
> software in naming a repository service, but how can it possibly hurt?
>
> Are there any actual statistics to support the belief that long URLs
> in the interior of a service actually affect anyone's behavior?
>
> It sounds like there should be some discussion among the various
> parties. Where?
>
> --
> Mark H. Wood
> Lead Technology Analyst
>
> University Library
> Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis
> 755 W. Michigan Street
> Indianapolis, IN 46202
> 317-274-0749
> www.ulib.iupui.edu
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Slashdot TV.
> Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
> http://tv.slashdot.org/
> _______________________________________________
> DSpace-tech mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-tech
> List Etiquette:
> https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Mailing+List+Etiquette
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Dspace-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-general
