Peter, are you opposed to an abstraction layer in principle? My reading
of your response is that there's an assumption that there is one "system"
and that it will work in perpetuity. We are in the unfortunate but I
think fairly common position of having multiple systems, of aspiring to
pare that down, and fully expectant that we'll need to migrate at some
point even if we find perfection in the near to mid term. Having a link
abstraction layer would make those transitions easier on our users, and on
the world of linked data in general.
On 1/26/11 4:51 PM, "Peter Murray" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>On Jan 26, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Erik Hetzner wrote:
>> At Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:57:42 -0600,
>> Pottinger, Hardy J. wrote:
>>> Hi, this topic has come up for discussion with some of my
>>> colleagues, and I was hoping to get a few other perspectives. For a
>>> public interface to a repository and/or digital library, would you
>>> make the handle/PURL an active hyperlink, or just provide the URL in
>>> text form? And why?
>>> My feeling is, making the URL an active hyperlink implies confidence
>>> in the PURL/Handle, and provides the user with functionality they
>>> expect of a hyperlink (right or option-click to copy, or bookmark).
>> A permanent URL should be displayed in the address bar of the useršs
>> browser. Then, when users do what they are going to do anyway (select
>> the link in the address bar & copy it), it will work.
>...which is why I intensely dislike Handles and PURLs. Man-up
>(person-up? byte-up?) and make a long-term commitment to own the URLs you
>mint with your digital asset management system.
>Peter Murray [log in to unmask] tel:+1-678-235-2955
>Ass't Director, Technology Services Development http://dltj.org/about/
>Lyrasis -- Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.
>The Disruptive Library Technology Jester http://dltj.org/