 |
 |
I still think that rft_id IS meant to be a unique identifier! Again, 5.2.1 of z3988 says of the *_id fields: "An Identifier Descriptor unambiguously specifies the Entity by means of a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)." I guess 'unambiguous' isn't exactly the same thing as 'unique', depending on what you mean by 'unique', okay. But it's pretty clear to me that rft_id is meant to be an identifier for the referent. Meaning the same rft_id should not correspond to two different referents. (But the same referent can certainly have multiple rft_id's, although it's inconvenient when it has multiple ones within the same scheme/system, it happens and is not disastrous). Rosalyn Metz wrote: > Owen, > > rft_id isn't really meant to be a unique identifier (although it can > be in situations like a pmid or doi). are you looking for it to be? > if so why? > > if professor A is pointing to http://www.bbc.co.uk and professor B is > pointing to http://www.bbc.co.uk why do they have to have unique > OpenURLs. > > Rosalyn > > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Eric Hellman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Nate's point is what I was thinking about in this comment in my original >> reply: >> If you don't add DC metadata, which seems like a good idea, you'll >> definitely want to include something that will help you to persist your >> replacement record. For example, a label or description for the link. >> >> I should also point out a solution that could work for some people but not >> you- put rewrite rules in the gateways serving your network. A bit dangerous >> and kludgy, but we've seen kludgier things. >> >> On Sep 14, 2009, at 4:24 PM, O.Stephens wrote: >> >>> Nate has a point here - what if we end up with a commonly used URI >>> pointing at a variety of different things over time, and so is used to >>> indicate different content each time. However the problem with a 'short URL' >>> solution (tr.im, purl etc), or indeed any locally assigned identifier that >>> acts as a key, is that as described in the blog post you need prior >>> knowledge of the short URL/identifier to use it. The only 'identifier' our >>> authors know for a website is it's URL - and it seems contrary for us to ask >>> them to use something else. I'll need to think about Nate's point - is this >>> common or an edge case? Is there any other approach we could take? >>> >>> >> Eric Hellman >> President, Gluejar, Inc. >> 41 Watchung Plaza, #132 >> Montclair, NJ 07042 >> USA >> >> [log in to unmask] >> http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/ >> >> > >