 |
 |
> 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 entire industry. Hear hear. I'm actually encouraged by Benjamin's linking (har har) to the httpRange-14 issue as being relevant to the concept of "link resolution", or at least redirection (indirection?) using URL surrogates for resources. Many are critical of the TAG's "resolution" (har har har) of the issue, and think it places too much on the 303 redirect. I'm afraid I still don't understand the issue fully enough to comment — though I'd love to hear from any who can. I agree with Eric's hope that the library world can look to W3C's thinking to inform a "better way" forward for link resolving, though. Which causes me to wonder whether I should mention some disturbing research we're finding within PKP that using identifiers (DOIs, Purls, Handles) for resolving resources (notably journal articles) actually *decreases* search engine relevance because most link resolvers (including CrossRef) use 302 redirects instead of 303s, which Google "ignores" (but some suspect treats as spam, and thus demotes the target domain). Actually, no, I won't mention that. Carry on. MJ