 |
 |
Yep, that's a pretty good summary of my personal advice Joe, thanks. Obviously others like Eric may have other opinions, that's just mine. Joe Hourcle wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Mike Taylor wrote: > > >> 2009/9/14 Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>: >> >>> Seriously, don't use OpenURL unless you really can't find anything else that >>> will do, or you actually want your OpenURLs to be used by the existing 'in >>> the wild' OpenURL resolvers. In the latter case, don't count on them doing >>> anything in particular or consistent with 'novel' OpenURLs, like ones that >>> put an end-user access URL in rft_id... don't expect actually existing in >>> the wild OpenURLs to do anything in particular with that. >>> >> Jonathan, I am getting seriously mixed messages from you on this >> thread. In one message, you'll strongly insist that some facility in >> OpenURL is or isn't useful; in the next, you'll be saying that the >> whole standard is dead. The last time I was paying serious attention >> to OpenURL, that certainly wasn't true -- has something happened in >> the last few months to make it so? >> > > My interpretation of the part of Jonathan's response that you quoted was > basically, don't use OpenURL when you're just looking for persistant URLs. > > The whole point of OpenURL was that the local resolver could determine > what the best way to get you the resource was (eg, digital library vs. ILL > vs. giving you a specific room & shelf). > > If you're using OpenURLs for the reason of having it work with the > established network of resolvers, don't get cute w/ encoding the > information, as you can't rely on it to work. > > ... > > >From what I've seen of the thread (and I admit, I didn't read every > message), what's needed here is PURL, not OpenURL. > > -Joe > >