I'll try to find out.
Sent from Eric Hellman's iPhone
On May 2, 2010, at 4:10 PM, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz
wrote:
But the interesting use case isn't OpenURL over HTTP, the
interesting use case (for me) is OpenURL on a disconnected eBook
reader resolving references from one
Here is the API response Umlaut provides to OpenURL requests with
standard scholarly formats. This API response is of course to some
extent customized to Umlaut's particular context/use cases, it was not
neccesarily intended to be any kind of standard -- certainly not with as
wide-ranging
Quoting Jakob Voss jakob.v...@gbv.de:
I bet there are several reasons why OpenURL failed in some way but I
think one reason is that SFX got sold to Ex Libris. Afterwards there
was no interest of Ex Libris to get a simple clean standard and most
libraries ended up in buying a black box with an
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote:
Quoting Jakob Voss jakob.v...@gbv.de:
I bet there are several reasons why OpenURL failed in some way but I
think one reason is that SFX got sold to Ex Libris. Afterwards there
was no interest of Ex Libris to get a simple
Bill Dueber wrote:
if the librarians would grow a pair
and demand better data via our contracts
While I agree with your overall point, it would have been better made
with the gendered phrasing, in my view.
cheers
stuart
--
Stuart Yeates
http://www.nzetc.org/ New Zealand Electronic
Ross Singer wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com wrote:
On 30 April 2010 16:42, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to clarify -- OpenURL 1.0 does not assume HTTP is being used.
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
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.
Absolutely. There is no inherent reason
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Kyle Banerjee kyle.baner...@gmail.com wrote:
An obvious thing for a resolver to be able to do is return results in JSON
so the OpenURL can be more than a static link. But since the standard
defines no such response, the site generating the OpenURL would have to
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually think this lack of any specified response format is a large
factor in the stagnation of OpenURL as a technology. Since a resolver
is under no obligation to do anything but present a web page it's
difficult
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
Eek. I was hoping for something much simpler. Do you realize that you're asking
for service taxonomy?
On Apr 30, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Ross Singer wrote:
I think the basis of a response could actually be another context
object with the 'services' entity containing a list of
services/targets
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.
What I hope for
What I hope for is that OpenURL 1.0 eventually takes a place alongside SGML
as a too-complex standard that directly paves the way for a universally
adopted foundational technology like XML. What I fear is that it takes a
place alongside MARC as an anachronistic standard that paralyzes an
Even the best standard in the world can only do so much!
On Apr 29, 2010, at 1:14 PM, Ed Summers 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
Eric Hellman wrote:
What I hope for is that OpenURL 1.0 eventually takes a place
alongside SGML as a too-complex standard that directly paves the way
for a universally adopted foundational technology like XML. What I
fear is that it takes a place alongside MARC as an anachronistic
standard that
But all the flaws of XML can be traced back to SGML which is
why we now use JSON despite all of its limitations.
excuse me, but JSON is something completely different. It is an object notation
and in not at all usable to structure data. XML is great to describe complex
data, but it is often
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 04:17, Jakob Voss jakob.v...@gbv.de wrote:
But all the flaws of XML can be traced back to SGML which is why we now use
JSON despite all of its limitations.
Hmm, this is wrong on so many levels. First, SGML was pretty darn good
for its *purpose*, but it was a geeks dream
May I just add here that of all the things we've talked about in these threads,
perhaps the only thing that will still be in use a hundred years from now will
be Unicode. إن شاء الله
On Apr 29, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
However, I'd like to add here that I happen to love
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:54, Eric Hellman e...@hellman.net wrote:
May I just add here that of all the things we've talked about in these
threads, perhaps the only thing that will still be in use a hundred years
from now will be Unicode. إن شاء الله
May I remind you that we're still using
Ha!
One of the things OpenURL 1.0 fixed was to wire in UTF-8 encoding. Much of
the MARC data in circulation also uses UTF-8 encoding. Some of it even uses it
correctly.
On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:58 PM, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:54, Eric Hellman e...@hellman.net
Eric Hellman wrote:
May I just add here that of all the things we've talked about in
these threads, perhaps the only thing that will still be in use a
hundred years from now will be Unicode. إن شاء الله
Sadly, yes, I agree with you on this.
Do you have any idea how demotivating that is for
22 matches
Mail list logo
