On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Diane Hillmann <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Owen Stephens <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >
> > This issue is certainly not unique to VT - we've come across this as part
> > of our project. While the OAI-PMH record may point at the PDF, it can
> also
> > point to a intermediary page. This seems to be standard practice in some
> > instances - I think because there is a desire, or even requirement, that
> a
> > user should see the intermediary page (which may contain rights
> information
> > etc.) before viewing the full-text item. There may also be an issue where
> > multiple files exist for the same item - maybe several data files and a
> pdf
> > of the thesis attached to the same metadata record - as the metadata via
> > OAI-PMH may not describe each asset.
> >
> >
> This has been an issue since the early days of OAI-PMH, and many large
> providers provide such intermediate pages (arxiv.org, for instance). The
> other issue driving providers towards intermediate pages is that it allows
> them to continue to derive statistics from usage of their materials, which
> direct access URIs and multiple web caches don't.  For providers dependent
> on external funding, this is a biggie.
>
>
Why do you place direct access URI and multiple web caches into the same
category? I follow your argument re: usage statistics for web caches, but
as long as the item remains hosted in the repository direct access URIs
should still be counted (provided proper cache-control headers are sent.)
Perhaps it would require server-side statistics rather than client-based GA.

Also, it seems to me that except for Google full-text indexing engines
don't necessarily want to be come providers of cached copies (certainly the
discovery systems currently provided commercially don't AFAIK.)

 - Godmar