Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-05-03 Thread Eric Hellman
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-05-03 Thread Jonathan Rochkind
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-05-03 Thread Karen Coyle
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-05-03 Thread Bill Dueber
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-05-03 Thread stuart yeates
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-05-02 Thread stuart yeates
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.

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL

2010-04-30 Thread Jakob Voss
Stuart Yeates wrote: A great deal of heat has been vented in this thread, and at least a little light. I'd like to invite everyone to contribute to the wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenURL in the hopes that it evolves into a better overview of the protocol, the ecosystem

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-30 Thread Owen Stephens
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL

2010-04-30 Thread Thomas Berger
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Jakob Voss schrieb: ... Am I right that neither OpenURL nor COinS strictly defines a metadata model with a set of entities/attributes/fields/you-name-it and their definition? Apparently all ContextObjects metadata formats are based on

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-30 Thread Kyle Banerjee
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL

2010-04-30 Thread Ross Singer
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Jakob Voss jakob.v...@gbv.de wrote: Am I right that neither OpenURL nor COinS strictly defines a metadata model with a set of entities/attributes/fields/you-name-it and their definition? Apparently all ContextObjects metadata formats are based on non-normative

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-30 Thread Ross Singer
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-30 Thread Ed Summers
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-30 Thread Corey A Harper
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-30 Thread Eric Hellman
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

[CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-29 Thread Eric Hellman
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-29 Thread MJ Suhonos
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-29 Thread Eric Hellman
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-29 Thread Jakob Voss
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL

2010-04-29 Thread Benjamin Young
On 4/29/10 12:32 PM, MJ Suhonos 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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-29 Thread Boheemen, Peter van
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL

2010-04-29 Thread stuart yeates
A great deal of heat has been vented in this thread, and at least a little light. I'd like to invite everyone to contribute to the wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenURL in the hopes that it evolves into a better overview of the protocol, the ecosystem and their place on th

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-29 Thread Alexander Johannesen
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-29 Thread Eric Hellman
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-29 Thread Alexander Johannesen
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-29 Thread Eric Hellman
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

Re: [CODE4LIB] it's cool to hate on OpenURL (was: Twitter annotations...)

2010-04-29 Thread stuart yeates
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