whoops....that should be rfr_id not rft_id.


> http://resolver.address/?
> &url_ver=Z39.88-2004
> &url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx
> &rfr_id=mylocalid
> &rft_dat=<url>http://www.bbc.co.uk</url>


On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Rosalyn Metz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> i'd like to point out that perhaps the reason that SFX (and other link
> resolvers) don't use the rft_id in a particular way is because no one
> has pushed it to.  for example, it is possible for you to have the
> word dinosaur link to an openurl and provide services for dinosaurs,
> but the question is:
>
> 1) who would provide a link in their articles on webpages to an
> openurl about dinosaurs.
>
> 2) do users really care.
>
> if i were in Owen's position i might create an openurl that looked like this:
>
> http://resolver.address/?
> &url_ver=Z39.88-2004
> &url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx
> &rft_id=mylocalid
> &rft_dat=<url>http://www.bbc.co.uk</url>
>
> where mylocalid is an id i created to give these "special" openurls
> and
> where <url> is the tag that i made up to help my resolver identify the
> data i'm sending privately.
>
> i could then write a program so my link resolver knows that the
> information contained in the private data field (rft_dat) and is
> identified by <url> should direct you to that url.  you might also
> need to make up some other tags (like <pdf> if all your pdfs are in
> one spot).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> I disagree.   Putting URIs that unamiguously identify the referent, and in some cases provide additional 'hooks' by virtue of additional identifiers (local bibID, OCLCnum, LCCN, etc) is a VERY useful thing to do to me.  Whether or not they resolve to an end-user appropriate web page or not.
>>
>> If you want to use rft_id to instead be an end-user appropriate access URL (which may or may not be a suitable unambiguous persistent identifier), I guess it depends on how many of the actually existing in-the-wild link resolvers will, in what contexts, treat an http URI as an end-user appropriate access URL. If a lot of the in-the-wild link resolvers will, that may be a practically useful thing to do. Thus me asking if the one you had knowledge of did or didn't.
>>
>> I'm 99% sure that SFX will not, in any context, treat an rft_id as an appropriate end-user access URL.
>>
>> Certainly providing an appropriate end-user access URL _is_ a useful thing to do. So is providing an unambiguous persistent identifier. Both are quite useful things to do, they're just different things, shame that OpenURL kinda implies that you can use the same data element for both.  OpenURL's not alone there though, DC does the same thing.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> Eric Hellman wrote:
>>>
>>>  If you have a URL that can be used for a resource that you are  describing in metadata, resolvers can do a better job providing  services to users if it is put in the openurl. The only place to put  it is rft_id. So let's not let one resolver's incapacity to prevent  other resolvers from providing better services.
>>>
>>> If you want to make an OpenURL for a web page, its url is in almost  all cases the best unambiguous identifier you could possibly think of.
>>>
>>> Putting dead http uri's in rft_id is not really a very useful thing to  do.
>>>
>>> On Sep 14, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eric Hellman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://catalog.library.jhu.edu/bib/NUM identifies a catalog record-  I  mean what else would you use to id the catalog record. unless  you've  implemented the http-range 303 redirect recommendation in  your catalog  (http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/), it shouldn't be  construed as  identifying the thing it describes, except as a  private id, and you  should use another field for that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course. But how is a link resolver supposed to know that, when  all it has is rft_id=http://catalog.library.jhu.edu/bib/NUM  ??
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that this is a kind of ambiguity in OpenURL, that many of  us are using rft_id to, in some contexts,  simply provide an  unambiguous identifier, and in other cases, provide an end-user  access URL  (which may not be a good unambiguous identifier at  all!).   With no way for the link resolver to tell which was intended.
>>>>
>>>> So I don't think it's a good idea to do this.  I think the community  should choose one, and based on the language of the OpenURL spec,  rft_id is meant to be an unambiguous identifier, not an end-user  access URL.
>>>>
>>>> So ideally another way would be provided to send something intended  as an end-user access URL in an OpenURL.
>>>>
>>>> But OpenURL is pretty much a dead spec that is never going to be  developed further in any practical way. So, really, I recommend  avoiding OpenURL for some non-library standard web standards  whenever you can. But sometimes you can't, and OpenURL really is the  best tool for the job. I use it all the time. And it constantly  frustrates me with it's lack of flexibility and clarity, leading to  people using it in ambiguous ways.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>
>>> Eric Hellman
>>> President, Gluejar, Inc.
>>> 41 Watchung Plaza, #132
>>> Montclair, NJ 07042
>>> USA
>>>
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>