 |
 |
I'm thinking about it :) Logically I think we can avoid this as we have the context based on the rfr_id (for which we are proposing) rfr_id=info:sid/learn.open.ac.uk:[course code] (at the risk of more comment!) Which seems to me equivalent. I guess it is just a matter of where you do the work, since in SFX we'll end up constructing a 'fetch' to the same location anyway. The amount of work involved to change it one way or the other is probably trivial though. I'm not sure I agree that what I'm proposing puts 'random' URLs in the rft_id, although I do accept that this is a moot point if other resolvers don't do something useful with them (or worse, make incorrect assumptions about them) - perhaps this is something I could survey as part of the project... (although its all moot if we are only doing this within an internal environment and no-one else ever does it!) 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 Jonathan Rochkind > Sent: 15 September 2009 16:52 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Implementing OpenURL for simple web resources > > 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). > >>> > >>> > > > > > The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).