 |
 |
I do like Ross's solution, if you really wanna use OpenURL. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of including a URI based on your own local service in rft_id, then including any old public URL in rft_id. Then at least your link resolver can say "if what's in rft_id begins with (eg) http://telstar.open.ac.uk/, THEN I know this is one of these purl type things, and I know that sending the user to it will result in a redirect to an end-user-appropriate access URL." Cause that's my concern with putting random URLs in rft_id, that there's no way to know if they are intended as end-user-appropriate access URLs or not, and in putting things in rft_id that aren't really good "identifiers" for the referent at all. But using your own local service ID, now you really DO have something that's appropriately considered a "persistent identifier" for the referent, AND you have a straightforward way to tell when the rft_id of this context is intended as an access URL. Jonathan Ross Singer wrote: > Oh yeah, one thing I left off -- > > In Moodle, it would probably make sense to link to the URL in the <a> tag: > <a href="http://bbc.co.uk/">The Beeb!</a> > but use a javascript onMouseDown action to rewrite the link to route > through your funky link resolver path, a la Google. > > That way, the page works like any normal webpage, "right mouse > click->Copy Link Location" gives the user the "real" URL to copy and > paste, but normal behavior funnels through the link resolver. > > -Ross. > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Given that the burden of creating these links is entirely on RefWorks >> & Telstar, OpenURL seems as good a choice as anything (since anything >> would require some other service, anyway). As long as the profs >> aren't expected to mess with it, I'm not sure that *how* you do the >> indirection matters all that much and, as you say, there are added >> bonuses to keeping it within SFX. >> >> It seems to me, though, that your rft_id should be a URI to the db >> you're using to store their references, so your CTX would look >> something like: >> >> http://res.open.ac.uk/?rfr_id=info:/telstar.open.ac.uk&rft_id=http://telstar.open.ac.uk/1234&dc.identifier=http://bbc.uk.co/ >> # not url encoded because I have, you know, a life. >> >> I can't remember if you can include both metadata-by-reference keys >> and metadata-by-value, but you could have by-reference >> (&rft_ref=http://telstar.open.ac.uk/1234&rft_ref_fmt=RIS or something) >> point at your citation db to return a formatted citation. >> >> This way your citations are unique -- somebody pointing at today's >> London Times frontpage isn't the same as somebody else's on a >> different day. >> >> While I'm shocked that I agree with using OpenURL for this, it seems >> as reasonable as any other solution. That being said, unless you can >> definitely offer some other service besides linking to the resource, >> I'd avoid the resolver menu completely. >> >> -Ross. >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:17 AM, O.Stephens <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Ross - no you didn't miss it, >>> >>> There are 3 ways that references might be added to the learning environment: >>> >>> An author (or realistically a proxy on behalf of the author) can insert a reference into a structured Word document from an RIS file. This structured document (XML) then goes through a 'publication' process which pushes the content to the learning environment (Moodle), including rendering the references from RIS format into a specified style, with links. >>> An author/librarian/other can import references to a 'resources' area in our learning environment (Moodle) from a RIS file >>> An author/librarian/other can subscribe to an RSS feed from a RefWorks 'RefShare' folder within the 'resources' area of the learning environment >>> >>> In general the project is focussing on the use of RefWorks - so although the RIS files could be created by any suitable s/w, we are looking specifically at RefWorks. >>> >>> How you get the reference into RefWorks is something we are looking at currently. The best approach varies depending on the type of material you are looking at: >>> >>> For websites it looks like the 'RefGrab-it' bookmarklet/browser plugin (depending on your browser) is the easiest way of capturing website details. >>> For books, probably a Union catalogue search from within RefWorks >>> For journal articles, probably a Federated search engine (SS 360 is what we've got) >>> Any of these could be entered by hand of course, as could several other kinds of reference >>> >>> Entering the references into RefWorks could be done by an author, but it more likely to be done by a member of clerical staff or a librarian/library assistant >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> Owen Stephens >>> TELSTAR Project Manager >>> Library and Learning Resources Centre >>> The Open University >>> Walton Hall >>> Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA >>> >>> T: +44 (0) 1908 858701 >>> F: +44 (0) 1908 653571 >>> E: [log in to unmask] >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On >>>> Behalf Of Ross Singer >>>> Sent: 15 September 2009 15:56 >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Implementing OpenURL for simple web resources >>>> >>>> Owen, I might have missed it in this message -- my eyes are >>>> starting glaze over at this point in the thread, but can you >>>> describe how the input of these resources would work? >>>> >>>> What I'm basically asking is -- what would the professor need >>>> to do to add a new: citation for a 70 year old book; journal >>>> on PubMed; URL to CiteSeer? >>>> >>>> How does their input make it into your database? >>>> >>>> -Ross. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:04 AM, O.Stephens >>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> True. How, from the OpenURL, are you going to know that the rft is >>>>>> meant to represent a website? >>>>>> >>>>> I guess that was part of my question. But no one has suggested >>>>> defining a new metadata profile for websites (which I >>>>> >>>> probably would >>>> >>>>> avoid tbh). DC doesn't seem to offer a nice way of doing >>>>> >>>> this (that is >>>> >>>>> saying 'this is a website'), although there are perhaps >>>>> >>>> some bits and >>>> >>>>> pieces (format, type) that could be used to give some >>>>> >>>> indication (but >>>> >>>>> I suspect not unambiguously) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> But I still think what you want is simply a purl server. What makes >>>>>> you think you want OpenURL in the first place? But I still don't >>>>>> really understand what you're trying to do: "deliver consistency of >>>>>> approach across all our references" -- so are you using OpenURL for >>>>>> it's more "conventional" use too, but you want to tack on a >>>>>> >>>> purl-like >>>> >>>>>> functionality to the same software that's doing something >>>>>> >>>> more like a >>>> >>>>>> conventional link resolver? I don't completely understand >>>>>> >>>> your use case. >>>> >>>>> I wouldn't use OpenURL just to get a persistent URL - I'd >>>>> >>>> almost certainly look at PURL for this. But, I want something >>>> slightly different. I want our course authors to be able to >>>> use whatever URL they know for a resource, but still try to >>>> ensure that the link works persistently over time. I don't >>>> think it is reasonable for a user to have to know a 'special' >>>> URL for a resource - and this approach means establishing a >>>> PURL for all resources used in our teaching material whether >>>> or not it moves in the future - which is an overhead it would >>>> be nice to avoid. >>>> >>>>> You can hit delete now if you aren't interested, but ... >>>>> >>>>> ... perhaps if I just say a little more about the project >>>>> >>>> I'm working on it may clarify... >>>> >>>>> The project I'm working on is concerned with referencing >>>>> >>>> and citation. We are looking at how references appear in >>>> teaching material (esp. online) and how they can be reused by >>>> students in their personal environment (in essays, later >>>> study, or something else). The references that appear can be >>>> to anything - books, chapters, journals, articles, etc. >>>> Increasingly of course there are references to web-based materials. >>>> >>>>> For print material, references generally describe the >>>>> >>>> resource and nothing more, but for digital material >>>> references are expected not only to describe the resource, >>>> but also state a route of access to the resource. This tends >>>> to be a bad idea when (for example) referencing e-journals, >>>> as we know the problems that surround this - many different >>>> routes of access to the same item. OpenURLs work well in this >>>> situation and seem to me like a sensible (and perhaps the >>>> only viable) solution. So we can say that for >>>> journals/articles it is sensible to ignore any URL supplied >>>> as part of the reference, and to form an OpenURL instead. If >>>> there is a DOI in the reference (which is increasingly >>>> common) then that can be used to form a URL using DOI >>>> resolution, but it makes more sense to me to hand this off to >>>> another application rather than bake this into the reference >>>> - and OpenURL resolvers are reasonably set to do this. >>>> >>>>> If we look at a website it is pretty difficult to reference >>>>> >>>> it without including the URL - it seems to be the only good >>>> way of describing what you are actually talking about (how >>>> many people think of websites by 'title', 'author' and >>>> 'publisher'?). For me, this leads to an immediate confusion >>>> between the description of the resource and the route of >>>> access to it. So, to differentiate I'm starting to think of >>>> the http URI in a reference like this as a URI, but not >>>> necessarily a URL. We then need some mechanism to check, >>>> given a URI, what is the URL. >>>> >>>>> Now I could do this with a script - just pass the URI to a >>>>> >>>> script that checks what URL to use against a list and >>>> redirects the user if necessary. On this point Jonathan said >>>> "if the usefulness of your technique does NOT count on being >>>> inter-operable with existing link resolver infrastructure... >>>> PERSONALLY I would be using OpenURL, I don't think it's worth >>>> it" - but it struck me that if we were passing a URI to a >>>> script, why not pass it in an OpenURL? I could see a number >>>> of advantages to this in the local context: >>>> >>>>> Consistency - references to websites get treated the same as >>>>> references to journal articles - this means a single >>>>> >>>> approach on the >>>> >>>>> course side, with flexibility Usage stats - we could collect these >>>>> whatever, but if we do it via OpenURL we get this in the >>>>> >>>> same place as >>>> >>>>> the stats about usage of other scholarly material and could >>>>> >>>> consider >>>> >>>>> driving personalisation services off the data (like the bX product >>>>> from Ex Libris) Appropriate copy problem - for resources we >>>>> >>>> subscribe >>>> >>>>> to with authentication mechanisms there is (I think) an >>>>> >>>> equivalent to >>>> >>>>> the 'appropriate copy' issue as with journal articles - we >>>>> >>>> can push a >>>> >>>>> URI to 'Web of Science' to the correct version of Web of >>>>> >>>> Science via a >>>> >>>>> local authentication method (using ezproxy for us) >>>>> >>>>> The problem with the approach (as Nate and Eric mention) is >>>>> >>>> that any approach that relies on the URI as a identifier >>>> (whether using OpenURL or a script) is going to have problems >>>> as the same URI could be used to identify different resources >>>> over time. I think Eric's suggestion of using additional >>>> information to help differentiate is worth looking at, but I >>>> suspect that this is going to cause us problems - although >>>> I'd say that it is likely to cause us much less work than the >>>> alternative, which is allocating every single reference to a >>>> web resource used in our course material it's own persistent URL. >>>> >>>>> The use case we are currently looking at is only with our >>>>> >>>> own (authenticated) learning environment - so these OpenURLs >>>> are not going to appear in the wild, so to some extent >>>> perhaps it doesn't matter what we do - but it still seems >>>> sensible to me to look at what 'good practice' might look like. >>>> >>>>> I hope this is clear - I'm still struggling with some of >>>>> >>>> this, and sometimes it doesn't make complete sense to me, but >>>> that's my best stab at explaining my thinking at the moment. >>>> Again, I appreciate the comments. Jonathan said "But you seem >>>> to understand what's up". I wish I did! I guess that I'm >>>> reasonably confident that the approach I'm describing has >>>> some chance of doing the job - whether it is the best >>>> approach I'm not so sure about. >>>> >>>>> Owen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC >>>>> >>>> 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity >>>> registered in Scotland (SC 038302). >>>> >>> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302). >>> >>> > >