 |
 |
I agree that OpenURL is crappy. My point was that the "problem case" -- 'identifying' (or describing an element sufficient for identification, if you like to call it that) publications that do not have standard identifiers -- is a real one. OpenURL _does_ solve it. You _probably_ don't want to ignore this problem case in a twitter annotation scenario. If you can solve it _better_ than OpenURL, than all the better. Or if you decide intentionally to exclude it from your scenario, that's fine, you know your intended domain. But OpenURL, despite it's crappiness, _does_ address this "problem case" reasonably effectively, and it is really in use. I'm certainly not trying to be an OpenURL booster. But it works, and until/unless we have something better, is is addressing a problem case that is really important in many scenarios (like getting users to licensed full text, naturally). Jonathan Ross Singer wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 8:17 AM, MJ Suhonos <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Okay, I know it's cool to hate on OpenURL, but I feel I have to clarify a few points: >> >> > > It's not that it's cool to hate on OpenURL, but if you've really > worked with it it's easy to grow bitter. > > <snip> > >> Maybe if I put it that way, OpenURL sounds a little less crappy. >> > > No, OpenURL is still crappy and it will always be crappy, I'm afraid, > because it's tremendously complicated, mainly from the fact that it > tries to do too much. > > The reason that context-sensitive services based on bibliographic > citations comprise 99% of all OpenURL activity is because: > A) that was the problem it was originally designed to solve > B) it's the only thing it really does well (and OpenURL 1.0's > insistence on being able to solve any problem almost takes that > strength away from it) > > The barriers to entry + the complexity of implementation almost > guarantee that there's a better or, at any rate, easier alternative to > any problem. > > The difference between OpenURL and DublinCore is that the RDF > community picked up on DC because it was simple and did exactly what > they needed (and nothing more). A better analogy would be Z39.50 or > SRU: two non-library-specific protocols that, for their own reasons, > haven't seen much uptake outside of the library community. > > -Ross. > >