LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  May 2008

CODE4LIB May 2008

Subject:

Re: Latest OpenLibrary.org release

From:

Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 8 May 2008 11:12:09 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (159 lines)

I guess I don't understand why you'd prefer SRU to an API.  The ideal
(in my mind) is that by having the API available, you have your cake
and eat it too.  Can a SRU (or OpenSearch or OpenURL or whatever)
service not be built on top of the API?

However, if there was no API available, only a SRU service, wouldn't
you complain about something else that SRU didn't do?

I don't know, personally I don't think it's the OL or IA's job to
build interfaces that they don't personally need.  I am much more
interested in them building functionality to the OL itself.  If a SRU
interface is important enough to somebody, they'll build one (or pay
IndexData to do it).

If the foundation is there, the standards can be built upon them.

-Ross.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In general, I think we all agree that standards should be used where
> possible---a proliferation of APIs that our client software needs to
> talk to leads to much harder to maintain client software than re-using
> APIs.
>
> However, if the standards are truly too hard to work with, sometimes the
> 'correct' decision is indeed to design a new one. However, I guess some
> of our concern is that from observation, it kind of looks like the
> OpenLibrary team didn't even consider SRU, it wasn't considered and
> dismissed based on technical evaluation, but rather ignored from the
> start. This is rather distressing, especially for a project with as
> ambitious goals as OpenLibrary. For the project to be successful (which
> most of us observers want very much), it's very important to understand
> the existing technology landscape and how to fit into it.  Now, to be
> sure, it may be that the existing _library_ technology landscape is not
> particularly of interest to OpenLibrary, that they are more interested
> in connecting with the larger technology world and see library
> technology infrastructure as a tiny and irrelevant backwater. :)
> That's up to them to decide this sort of strategy, and may be valid, and
> would justify simply ignoring technology which is _mainly_ (but not
> exclusively) adopted by the library world---but would of course be
> distressing to us in the library technology world hoping we can connect
> to the OpenLibrary project.
>
> It's also nice to say "it's open source, if you want it you can add it."
> And it DOES matter that it's open source, and this is HUGELY good. But
> most of us are already working on multiple open source projects, many of
> which _we_ are trying to recruit people too also.  It's a small pond of
> library developers, and a big need for open source library software. If
> OpenLibrary becomes as succesful as we all hope, then it will attract
> open source contributions, from library developers and others. If the
> OpenLibrary team wants to _get_ it to that succesful point, than in my
> view it would be wise to spend OpenLibrary resources on components that
> will make it easy for library and other developers to interface with it.
> I'm sure they agree--which is why it has an API at all, rather than just
> leaving it API-less and saying "hey, it's open source, if you want one
> add one!".  That would obviously be counter-productive to the goals.
>
> Again, I don't know enough about SRU to to know if it's suitable. I've
> certainly encountered other library 'standards' that are over-engineered
> and hard-to-adopt enough to justify abandoning them and creating
> something new. All I'd hope is that the OpenLibrary team actually _knew
> about_ SRU and gave it a serious evaluation---it is adopted enough to
> justify that. It's also worth saying that when you DO abandon an
> existing standard to write something new---it's a lot more productive to
> building a sustainable tech infrastructure if you try to make your
> 'something new' at least a potential de facto standard, rather than a
> custom thing only for your product.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Walker, David wrote:
>>>
>>> Nobody in the *library world* uses
>>> it, much less non-libraries.
>>>
>>
>> Ironically, I was just checking email in between using the WorldCat SRU
>> server.
>>
>> In addition to the systems Rob mentioned, there are also article databases
>> like JSTOR and Springerlink that implement SRU, and every metasearch system
>> in use in libraries today consume SRU web services.
>>
>> But I think the folks at OpenLibrary should implement an OpenSearch
>> interface.  I mean come on!  OpenLibrary, OpenSearch.  A match made in
>> heaven! ;-)
>>
>> --Dave
>>
>>
>> -------------------
>> David Walker
>> Library Web Services Manager
>> California State University
>> http://xerxes.calstate.edu
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Casey Durfee
>> Sent: Wed 5/7/2008 1:12 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Latest OpenLibrary.org release
>>
>>
>>
>> SRU is crap, in my opinion -- overengineered and under-thought,
>> incomprehensible to non-librarians and burdened by the weight of history.
>> The notion that it was designed to be used by all kinds of clients on all
>> kinds of data is irrelevant in my book.  Nobody in the *library world*
>> uses
>> it, much less non-libraries.  APIs are for use.  You don't get any points
>> for idealogical correctness.  A non-librarian could look at that API
>> document, understand it all, and start working with it right away.  There
>> is
>> no way you can say that about SRU.
>>
>> Kudos to the OpenLibrary team, whatever the reason was, for coming up with
>> something better that people outside the library world might actually be
>> willing to use.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Dr R. Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm the only non-techie on the team, so I don't know that much about
>>>
>>>> SRU.  (Our head programmer lives in India, and is presumably asleep at
>>>> the moment, otherwise I'd ask him!)  Is it an interface that is used
>>>> primarily by libraries?  We are definitely hoping that our API will be
>>>> used by all kinds, so perhaps that's the reasoning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's designed to be used by all kinds of clients on all kinds of data,
>>> but is from the library world so perhaps the most well defined use cases
>>> are in this arena.  Have a look at:
>>>  http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/
>>>
>>>  But this is an Open Source project, so if anyone would like to volunteer
>>>
>>>> to build an SRU interface... you can!  Please do! :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I feel a student project coming on. :)
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Digital Services Software Engineer
> The Sheridan Libraries
> Johns Hopkins University
> 410.516.8886
> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager