Eric Hellman wrote:
> 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  
> (, 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=  ??

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