You're absolutely correct, in fact, all the <ent>_val fields are  
reserved for future use! They went in and out of the spec. I'm trying  
to remember from my notes. It's better that they're out.

On Sep 14, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Rosalyn Metz wrote:

> sorry eric, i was reading straight from the documentation and  
> according to
> it it has no use.
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Eric Hellman <[log in to unmask]>  
> wrote:
>> It's not correct to say that rft_val has no use; when used, it should
>> contain a URL-encoded package of xml or kev metadata. it would be  
>> correct
>> to say it is very rarely used.
>> On Sep 14, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Rosalyn Metz wrote:
>> ok no one shoot me for doing this:
>>> in section 9.1 Namespaces [Registry] of the OpenURL standard  
>>> (z39.88) it
>>> actually provides an example of using a URL in the rfr_id field,  
>>> and i
>>> wonder why you couldn't just do the same thing for the rft_id
>>> also there is a field called rft_val which currently has no use.   
>>> this
>>> might
>>> be a good one for it.
>>> just my 2 cents.

Eric Hellman
President, Gluejar, Inc.
41 Watchung Plaza, #132
Montclair, NJ 07042

[log in to unmask]