[tshea...@email.unc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 5:45 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] to link or not to link: PURLs
Right, they are not the same, which is why I wondered if there was
opposition to an abstraction layer in principle.
A major problem
] On Behalf Of Shearer,
Timothy J [tshea...@email.unc.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 10:03 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] to link or not to link: PURLs
Thanks Peter (and everyone), that's what I was fishing for. We haven't
yet gone there, and this whole conversation has
I would say that it's SOMETIMES better than nothing. It depends on what
you're doing, what your requirements and goals are. Not every application
needs long-term persistence of URLs -- whether through an 'abstraction
layer' or not. ('abstraction layer' is just an implementation detail to get
2011/1/27 Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu:
If the best you can do is an external Handle/PURL set-up, then it is better
than nothing.
I would say that it's SOMETIMES better than nothing. It depends on what
you're doing, what your requirements and goals are. Not every application
needs
Hi, this has been a really interesting and informative discussion. I wonder if
I might be able to redirect it a bit back to my original question, with the
understanding that, as the discussion has made clear, a PURL or Handle is not
an ideal solution?
If, for the sake of argument, you are
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Pottinger, Hardy J.
pottinge...@umsystem.edu wrote:
If, for the sake of argument, you are dealing with software which provides
permanent URLs (say, for example, DSpace's out-of-the-box use of the Handle
system), would it be desirable to make these persistent
Hi, this topic has come up for discussion with some of my colleagues, and I was
hoping to get a few other perspectives. For a public interface to a repository
and/or digital library, would you make the handle/PURL an active hyperlink, or
just provide the URL in text form? And why?
My feeling
If you don't have any confidence in the URL, then why would you bother
giving it out at all? Links are links. Make them active.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 14:57, Pottinger, Hardy J. pottinge...@umsystem.edu
wrote:
Hi, this topic has come up for discussion with some of my colleagues, and I
was
If you don't have any confidence in the URL, then why would you bother
giving it out at all? Links are links. Make them active.
Hi, David, I agree. And thanks!
My feeling is, making the URL an active hyperlink implies confidence
in the PURL/Handle, and provides the user with functionality
At Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:57:42 -0600,
Pottinger, Hardy J. wrote:
Hi, this topic has come up for discussion with some of my
colleagues, and I was hoping to get a few other perspectives. For a
public interface to a repository and/or digital library, would you
make the handle/PURL an active
On Jan 26, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Erik Hetzner wrote:
At Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:57:42 -0600,
Pottinger, Hardy J. wrote:
Hi, this topic has come up for discussion with some of my
colleagues, and I was hoping to get a few other perspectives. For a
public interface to a repository and/or digital
+1 for eric and peter.
A resource's URL has to be the one in the location bar. That's the one
the delicious bookmarklet will grab, etc.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.org wrote:
On Jan 26, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Erik Hetzner wrote:
At Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:57:42
Peter, are you opposed to an abstraction layer in principle? My reading
of your response is that there's an assumption that there is one system
and that it will work in perpetuity. We are in the unfortunate but I
think fairly common position of having multiple systems, of aspiring to
pare that
as far as i can see, dislike of handles and PURLs doesn't mean
commitment to one system which will work in perpetuity, but only
commitment to own one domain in perpetuity. once you commit to that
you may create an abstraction/redirection layer with mod_rewrite :)
regards,
robert
On Wed, Jan 26,
Seems like your link abstraction layer should be baked into your system,
so the URL your users see in the location bar IS the one that your link
abstraction layer is handling and you are committing to persisting.
There's no reason a URL has to begin with 'purl.org' to be part of a
persisting
At Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:01:05 -0500,
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
It's sometimes not feasible/possible though. But it is unfortunate, and
I agree you should always just do that where possible.
I wonder if Google's use of the link rel=canonical element has been
catching on with any other tools?
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
Seems like your link abstraction layer should be baked into your system, so
the URL your users see in the location bar IS the one that your link
abstraction layer is handling and you are committing to persisting.
Which
Yep,using a globally unique identifier like an ARK is better than my
/records/12345 example,that's a better way to do it for sure.
So in that example,
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth60974/ is what you
access, http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth60974/ is what
, you'll get what you get, so it goes.
From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Shearer,
Timothy J [tshea...@email.unc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 5:45 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] to link
.
From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Shearer,
Timothy J [tshea...@email.unc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 5:45 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] to link or not to link: PURLs
Right
What a timely discussion. In the morning, Montana State Library will be
attempting to answer the question: do we need to continue making
permanent URLs to access our state pubs collection? It's not clear to
me what the handiness of permanent URLs is. Just tried a PURL from
our Montana state
21 matches
Mail list logo
