On 07.06.2010 16:15, Jay Luker wrote:
Hi all,
I found this thread rather interesting and figured I'd try and revive
the convo since apparently some things have been happening in the
twitter annotation space in the past month. I just read on techcrunch
that testing of the annotation features
Hi all,
I found this thread rather interesting and figured I'd try and revive
the convo since apparently some things have been happening in the
twitter annotation space in the past month. I just read on techcrunch
that testing of the annotation features will commence next week [1].
Also it
Alex,
Could you expand on how you think the problem that OpenURL tackles would
have been better approached with existing mechanisms? I'm not debating this
necessarily, but from my perspective when OpenURL was first introduced it
solved a real problem that I hadn't seen solved before.
Owen
On
Tim,
I'd vote for adopting the same approach as COinS on the basis it already has
some level of adoption, and we know covers at least some of the stuff
libraries and academic users (as used by both libraries and consumer tools
such as Zotero) might want to do. We are talking Books (from what
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 18:47, Owen Stephens o...@ostephens.com wrote:
Could you expand on how you think the problem that OpenURL tackles would
have been better approached with existing mechanisms?
As we all know, it's pretty much a spec for a way to template incoming
and outgoing URLs,
Thanks Alex,
This makes sense, and yes I see what your saying - and yes, if you end up
going back to custom coding because it's easier it does seem to defeat the
purpose.
However I'd argue that actually OpenURL 'succeeded' because it did manage to
get some level of acceptance (ignoring the
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 20:29, Owen Stephens o...@ostephens.com wrote:
However I'd argue that actually OpenURL 'succeeded' because it did manage to
get some level of acceptance (ignoring the question of whether it is v0.1 or
v1.0) - the cost of developing 'link resolvers' would have been much
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Call me pedantic but if you do not have an identifier than there is no
hope to identity the publication by means of metadata. You only
*describe* it with metadata and use additional heuristics (mostly
search engines) to hopefully identify the publication based on the
Okay, I know it's cool to hate on OpenURL, but I feel I have to clarify a few
points:
OpenURL is of no use if you seperate it from the existing infrastructure
which is mainly held by companies. No sane person will try to build an open
alternative infrastructure because OpenURL is a crapy
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 8:17 AM, MJ Suhonos m...@suhonos.ca wrote:
Okay, I know it's cool to hate on OpenURL, but I feel I have to clarify a few
points:
It's not that it's cool to hate on OpenURL, but if you've really
worked with it it's easy to grow bitter.
snip
Maybe if I put it that way,
On 29 April 2010 13:17, MJ Suhonos m...@suhonos.ca wrote:
The OpenURL specification is a 119 page PDF - that alone is a reason to run
away as fast as you can.
The main reason for this is because OpenURL can do much, much, much more than
the simple resolve a unique copy use case that
: Re: [CODE4LIB] Twitter annotations and library software
Okay, I know it's cool to hate on OpenURL, but I feel I have to clarify a few
points:
OpenURL is of no use if you seperate it from the existing infrastructure
which is mainly held by companies. No sane person will try to build an open
It's not that it's cool to hate on OpenURL, but if you've really
worked with it it's easy to grow bitter.
Well, fair enough. Perhaps what I'm defending isn't OpenURL per se, but rather
the concept of being able to transport descriptive assertions the way the 1.0
spec proposes.
The reason
Let me correct myself (for the detail-oriented among us):
Actually the difference between OpenURL and DC is that one is a transport
protocol and one is a metadata schema. :-)
OpenURL is a *serialization format* which happens to be actionable by a
transport protocol (HTTP), which is its main
I agree that OpenURL is crappy.
My point was that the problem case -- 'identifying' (or describing an
element sufficient for identification, if you like to call it that)
publications that do not have standard identifiers -- is a real one.
OpenURL _does_ solve it. You _probably_ don't want
Yes, what MJ said is indeed exactly my perspective as well.
MJ Suhonos wrote:
It's not that it's cool to hate on OpenURL, but if you've really
worked with it it's easy to grow bitter.
Well, fair enough. Perhaps what I'm defending isn't OpenURL per se, but rather
the concept of being
Can we just hold a vote or something?
I'm happy to do whatever the community here wants and will actually
use. I want to do something that will be usable by others. I also
favor something dead simple, so it will be implemented. If we don't
reach some sort of conclusion, this is an interesting
I wouldn't count on the community using anything, just because random
people on the listserv voted on it.
If you're coding it, you should take account of the feedback, and then
go on and create something that YOU will use, and makes sense to you.
And then hope other people do too. That's
I'm going to throw in my two cents.
I dont think (and correct me if i'm wrong) we have mentioned once what
a user might actually put in a twitter annotation. a book title? an
article title? a link?
i think creating some super complicated thing for a twitter annotation
dooms it to failure.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Rosalyn Metz rosalynm...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to throw in my two cents.
I dont think (and correct me if i'm wrong) we have mentioned once what
a user might actually put in a twitter annotation. a book title? an
article title? a link?
I think the idea
At #ldow2010 on Tuesday there was a presentation on semantic Twitter
via TwitLogic:
http://twitlogic.fortytwo.net/
You can download the full paper if you're really curious:
http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2010/papers/ldow2010_paper16.pdf
Twitter Annotations system was mentioned at the end as
Benjamin Young wrote:
Additionally (as someone outside of the library community proper),
OpenURL's dependence on resolvers would be the largest concern.
This is a misconception. An OpenURL context object can be created to
provide structured semantic citation information, without any
ok right now exlibris has a recommender service for sfx that stores
metadata from an openurl. lets say a vendor bothered to pass an
element like rft.subject=hippo (which is most likely unlikely to
happen since they can't even pass an issn half the time). that
subject got stored in the
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
(Last
time I looked at Bibo, I recall there was no place to put a standard
identifier like a DOI. So maybe using Bibo + URI for standard identifier
would suffice. etc.)
BIBO has all sorts of identifiers (including
So this is my recommended framework for proceeding. Tim, I'm afraid you'll
actually have to do the hard work yourself.
No, I don't. Because the work isn't fundamentally that hard. A complex
standard might be, but I never for a moment considered anything like
that. We have *512 bytes*, and it
I still don't really see how what you're talking about would
practically be accomplished.
For one, to have rft.subject, like you mention, would require using
the dublincore context set. Since that wouldn't be useful on its own
for the services that link resolvers currently offer, OpenURL sources
OK, back to Tim's specific question.
I'm not sure why you want to put bib data in a tweet at all for your
application. Why not just use a shortened URL pointing at your page of
metadata? That page could offer metadata via BIBO, Open Graph and FOAF in RDFa,
COinS, RIS, etc. using established
Dear Tim,
you wrote:
So this is my recommended framework for proceeding. Tim, I'm afraid
you'll actually have to do the hard work yourself.
No, I don't. Because the work isn't fundamentally that hard. A
complex standard might be, but I never for a moment considered
anything like that. We have
I vote (heh) for d which will look a lot like c anyway, but with
smatterings of owl:sameAs and Range-14 style 303's to keep things
interesting. :)
--
President
BigBlueHat
P: 864.232.9553
W: http://www.bigbluehat.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung
On 4/29/10 2:01 PM, Jakob Voss
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 22:47, Walker, David dwal...@calstate.edu wrote:
I would suggest it's more because, once you step outside of the
primary use case for OpenURL, you end-up bumping into *other* standards.
These issues were raised all the back when it was created, as well. I
guess it's
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Jakob Voss jakob.v...@gbv.de wrote:
If you want to put bibliographic metadata
into twitter annotations (good idea) you first need to clarify the basic
purpose of embedding this information. I see two of them:
I. Identification: To identify other tweets and
Hi
it's funny how quickly you vote against BibTeX, but at least it is a
format that is frequently used in the wild to create citations. If you
call BibTeX undocumented and garbage then how do you call MARC which is
far more difficult to make use of?
My assumption was that there is a
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Jakob Voss jakob.v...@gbv.de wrote:
P.S: An example of a CSL record from the JavaScript client:
{
title: True Crime Radio and Listener Disenchantment with Network
Broadcasting, 1935-1946,
author: [ {
family: Razlogova,
given: Elena
} ],
We've had problems with RIS on a recent project. Although there is a
specification (http://www.refman.com/support/risformat_intro.asp), it is (I
feel) lacking enough rigour to ever be implemented consistently. The most
common issue in the wild that I've seen is use of different tags for the
same
Ed Summers wrote:
II. Description: To nicely show which publication someone refers to.
I think this is right. I wonder, would you consider a potential use
case for Description to also provide machine readable data for a
resource when a standard identifier is not known?
There are lookup
for Libraries [code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Owen Stephens
[o...@ostephens.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 2:26 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Twitter annotations and library software
We've had problems with RIS on a recent project. Although there is a
specification
From: Code for Libraries [code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Owen
Stephens [o...@ostephens.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 2:26 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Twitter annotations and library software
We've had problems with RIS
- there is a JavaScript CSL-Processor. JavaScript is kind of a punishment but
it is the natural environment for the Web 2.0 Mashup crowd that is going to
implement applications that use Twitter annotations
A quick word of caution here; we got excited about citeproc-js until learning
that it
Jakob Voss wrote:
I. Identifiy publication = this can *only* be done seriously with
identifiers like ISBN, DOI, OCLCNum, LCCN etc.
Ah, but for better or for worse, that's not the world we live in. We
have LOTS of publications that either lack such identifiers altogether,
or where
Jakob Voss wrote:
There are lookup services to get a standard identifier when only some
bibliographic data is known - mainly OpenURL.
A standard identifier is not always _available_ -- even if you have
access to a service to look up standard identifiers ( a not neccesarily
realistic
Has anyone actually gotten up a _server-side_ process that uses CSL to
produce formatted citations? Using the citeproc-js with a certain
custom compiled js interpreter, or anything else?
This is what I'm interested in -- I'm not concerned with making it run
in a browser, so custom compiled
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Jakob Voss wrote:
I. Identifiy publication = this can *only* be done seriously with
identifiers like ISBN, DOI, OCLCNum, LCCN etc.
Ah, but for better or for worse, that's not the world we live in. We
have LOTS of publications that either lack such identifiers
Jakob Voss wrote:
Call me pedantic but if you do not have an identifier than there is no
hope to identity the publication by means of metadata. You only
*describe* it with metadata and use additional heuristics (mostly search
engines) to hopefully identify the publication based on the
I mean, really, if the folks at RefWorks, EndNote, Papers, Zotero and LibX
don't have crash programs underway to integrate Twitter clients into their
software to send and receive reference metadata payloads they can use in the
Twitter annotation field, they really ought to hire me to come and
Hi Tim,
you wrote:
Unless someone can come up with a perfect pre-cooked format—one that
not only covers what we need but is also super easy and
space-efficient (we have only 1/2k to use!)—Why don't we just decide
on:
'simplebib' : {
}
and start filling in fields. I don't think it makes
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Jakob Voss jakob.v...@gbv.de wrote:
The purpose of description can best be served by a format that can easily be
displayed for human beeings. You can either use a simple string or a
well-known format. A string can be displayed but people will put all
different
-1 for BibTex!
It can be hard to comprehensively parse without inadvertently creating garbage.
Tom
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Jakob Voss jakob.v...@gbv.de wrote:
The purpose of description can best be served by a
Jakob Voss wrote:
a) BibTeX
Can I vote against BibTex, please?
At the core of BibTeX is a language called 'BST' or that's the file
extension used, which is as close as it comes to a name.
This is an entirely undocumented language written to work on a patchily
documented format. It's
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Tim Spalding t...@librarything.com wrote:
I'd love to get some people together to agree on a standard book
annotation format, so two people can tweet about the same book or
other library item, and they or someone else can pull that together.
I'm inclined to
Have you looked the the citation microformat (
http://microformats.org/wiki/citation) ? Don't know where work with this
stands but it seems pretty interesting to me.
Karen
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Mark A. Matienzo m...@matienzo.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Tim Spalding
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Tim Spalding t...@librarything.com wrote:
I'm inclined to start adding it to the I'm talking about and I'm
adding links on LibraryThing. I imagine it could be easily added to
many library applications too—anywhere there is or could be a share
this on Twitter
whoops, forgot my footnote :-)
[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-api-announce/browse_thread/thread/fa5da2608865453
I was wondering if there was a good microformat. The trick is that the
citation format is very much about stuff that gets displayed, and
lacks the critical linking ids you'd want—ISBN, SSN, LCCN, OCLC, ASIN,
EAN, etc.
If people know of others that would work, maybe that's the answer.
On Wed, Apr
So almost all of those identifiers can be formatted as a URI. Although
sometimes it takes an info: uri, which some people don't like, but I
like, for reasons relevant to their usefulness here.
ISBN, ISSN, LCCN, and OCLCnum all have registered info: URI
sub-schemes. I once tried to figure
Unless someone can come up with a perfect pre-cooked format—one that
not only covers what we need but is also super easy and
space-efficient (we have only 1/2k to use!)—Why don't we just decide
on:
'simplebib' : {
}
and start filling in fields. I don't think it makes sense to
externalize the
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Tim Spalding t...@librarything.com wrote:
Unless someone can come up with a perfect pre-cooked format—one that
not only covers what we need but is also super easy and
space-efficient (we have only 1/2k to use!)—Why don't we just decide
on:
'simplebib' : {
Just to clarify, encoding identifiers as URI's, my suggestion, is NOT
externalizing the information under another URL. It is just picking
a standard format for identifiers, the identifier format of the web, to
re-use standards and cut down on custom vocabulary. If your 'simplebib'
idea made
I think Twitter annotations would be a good use for
http://thing-described-by.org/ or a functional equivalent. The payload of the
annotation would simply be a description URI and a namespace and value for
descriptions by reference
1. the mechanism would be completely generic, usable for any
58 matches
Mail list logo
