I agree that OpenURL is crappy.
My point was that the "problem case" -- 'identifying' (or describing an
element sufficient for identification, if you like to call it that)
publications that do not have standard identifiers -- is a real one.
OpenURL _does_ solve it. You _probably_ don't want to ignore this
problem case in a twitter annotation scenario. If you can solve it
_better_ than OpenURL, than all the better. Or if you decide
intentionally to exclude it from your scenario, that's fine, you know
your intended domain.
But OpenURL, despite it's crappiness, _does_ address this "problem case"
reasonably effectively, and it is really in use.
I'm certainly not trying to be an OpenURL booster. But it works, and
until/unless we have something better, is is addressing a problem case
that is really important in many scenarios (like getting users to
licensed full text, naturally).
Jonathan
Ross Singer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 8:17 AM, MJ Suhonos <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Okay, I know it's cool to hate on OpenURL, but I feel I have to clarify a few points:
>>
>>
>
> It's not that it's cool to hate on OpenURL, but if you've really
> worked with it it's easy to grow bitter.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Maybe if I put it that way, OpenURL sounds a little less crappy.
>>
>
> No, OpenURL is still crappy and it will always be crappy, I'm afraid,
> because it's tremendously complicated, mainly from the fact that it
> tries to do too much.
>
> The reason that context-sensitive services based on bibliographic
> citations comprise 99% of all OpenURL activity is because:
> A) that was the problem it was originally designed to solve
> B) it's the only thing it really does well (and OpenURL 1.0's
> insistence on being able to solve any problem almost takes that
> strength away from it)
>
> The barriers to entry + the complexity of implementation almost
> guarantee that there's a better or, at any rate, easier alternative to
> any problem.
>
> The difference between OpenURL and DublinCore is that the RDF
> community picked up on DC because it was simple and did exactly what
> they needed (and nothing more). A better analogy would be Z39.50 or
> SRU: two non-library-specific protocols that, for their own reasons,
> haven't seen much uptake outside of the library community.
>
> -Ross.
>
>
|