Print

Print


Interesting! Thanks. I didn't know you could use purl on a 
pattern-redirect basis like that.

Ross Singer wrote:
> So, in a what is probably a vain attempt to put this debate to rest, I
> created a partial redirect PURL for sudoc:
>
> http://purl.org/NET/sudoc/
>
> If you pass it any urlencoded sudoc string, you'll be redirected to
> the GPO's Aleph catalog that searches the sudoc field for that string.
>
> http://purl.org/NET/sudoc/E%202.11/3:EL%202
>
> should take you to:
> http://catalog.gpo.gov/F/?func=find-c&ccl_term=GVD%3DE%202.11/3:EL%202
>
> There, Jonathan, you have a dereferenceable URI structure that you
> A) don't have to worry about pointing at something misleading
> B) don't have to maintain (although I'll be happy to add whoever as a
> maintainer to this PURL)
>
> If the GPO ever has a better alternative, we just point the PURL at it
> in the future.
>
> -Ross.
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Houghton,Andrew <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>   
>>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>> Jonathan Rochkind
>>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 6:09 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?
>>>
>>> If GPO had a system where I could resolve Sudoc identifiers, then this
>>> whole problem would be solved right there, I wouldn't need to go any
>>> further, I'd just use the http URI's associated with that system as
>>> identifiers! This whole problem statement is because GPO does not
>>> provide any persistent URIs for sudoc's in the first place, right?
>>>       
>> With a little Googling how about this:
>>
>> sudoc: E 2.11/3:EL 2
>> <http://catalog.gpo.gov/F/FIBJ8T23DNC33L6KEDYR7Q8Q3MF6BI9H7Q5XPG4KB3N57HX35X-17544?func=scan&scan_code=SUD&scan_start=E+2.11%2F3%3AEL+2>
>>
>> looks like the param scan_start= holds the sudoc number.  Sure it gives you other
>> results, but its might work for your purposes.
>>
>> Seems like they are creating bad HTTP responses since Fiddler throws an protocol
>> violation because they do not end the HTTP headers with CR,LF,CR,LF and instead
>> use LF,LF...
>>
>>
>> Andy.
>>
>>     
>
>