 |
 |
Thanks Peter (and everyone), that's what I was fishing for. We haven't yet gone there, and this whole conversation has been very helpful. -t On 1/26/11 6:48 PM, "Peter Murray" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >So that will teach me to post a moderately controversial opinion, then >leave to take the kids out for a pizza dinner. > >I agree with what has been said so far, an in particular with Jonathan's >latest e-mail below. Abstraction layers are good. Hiding abstraction >layers from users is even better. If the best you can do is an external >Handle/PURL set-up, then it is better than nothing. If you have some >control and institutional commitment to a URL space -- creating "cool >URIs" [1] to your content, if you will -- then by all means do that. If >you can also attempt to future-proof your URL space with something like >ARKs [2], then I think it is the best of all worlds. > >[1] http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI >[2] https://confluence.ucop.edu/display/Curation/ARK > > >Peter > >On Jan 26, 2011, at 6:23 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >> >> What some in this thread are frowning on is having an "abstraction >>layer" such that the persistent URL for your web page or resource is not >>the URL that typical users see in their browser location bar when >>viewing that resource or web page. >> >> If your abstraction layer can make that so, then I don't think anyone >>in this thread would frown upon it. >> >> If your abstraction layer can't make that so... then I personally still >>agree it's sometimes an appropriate solution, the best trade-off, an >>acceptable evil. >> >> But it's worth spending some time thinking about if you can set it up >>to do that instead. >> >> Some shops have more technical capacity than others. If you are at a >>shop that can't even do their own apache install, then you are pretty >>much at the bottom of 'technical capacity' (which isn't an insult, >>that's where some people are), there isn't much of anything you can do, >>and you should be telling your vendors that you want them to provide you >>with software that does it right. That's pretty much all you can do. >>But STILL requires you to have enough understanding to tell the vendor >>what 'right' is and know if they've done it or not. If you can't even do >>that... well, you'll get what you get, so it goes. >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >>Shearer, Timothy J [[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 5:45 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] to link or not to link: PURLs >> >> Right, they are not the same, which is why I wondered if there was >> opposition to an abstraction layer in principle. >> >> A major problem for institutions who cannot afford to build is that they >> license systems. Licensed systems are often less than ideal. >> >> When an institution is in that scenario it either doesn't have the >> resources to tweak the system or the system is so closed as to be >> un-tweakable (or both). >> >> So your options, unless I'm missing something, are to stick with the bad >> urls your system provides, or to invest in an abstraction layer. >> >> I realize that the abstraction layer doesn't solve many of the problems >> (SEO, harvested indexes, user's re-use from the object they are looking >> at), but it does seem to solve some problems. Published urls (say in >> Worldcat, Open Library, and elsewhere). Taking advantage of linked data >> locally when you do have resources (e.g, an enhancing interface that >> extends functionality, or a preservation layer where a persistent >> identifier in the form of links would be handy). >> >> mod_rewrite assumes Apache, and that you may configure it. >> >> So I'm wondering if an abstraction layer is frowned upon in principle >>(as >> opposed to specific dislike or PURLS or handles). >> >> And, even if it's not ideal, whether it still presents utility, even in >> less than ideal implementations. >> >> -t >> >> >> On 1/26/11 5:09 PM, "Robert Forkel" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> as far as i can see, dislike of handles and PURLs doesn't mean >>> commitment to one system which will work in perpetuity, but only >>> commitment to own one domain in perpetuity. once you commit to that >>> you may create an abstraction/redirection layer with mod_rewrite :) >>> regards, >>> robert >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Shearer, Timothy J >>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> Peter, are you opposed to an abstraction layer in principle? My >>>>reading >>>> of your response is that there's an assumption that there is one >>>> "system" >>>> and that it will work in perpetuity. We are in the unfortunate but I >>>> think fairly common position of having multiple systems, of aspiring >>>>to >>>> pare that down, and fully expectant that we'll need to migrate at some >>>> point even if we find perfection in the near to mid term. Having a >>>>link >>>> abstraction layer would make those transitions easier on our users, >>>>and >>>> on >>>> the world of linked data in general. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/26/11 4:51 PM, "Peter Murray" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Jan 26, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Erik Hetzner wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> At Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:57:42 -0600, >>>>>> Pottinger, Hardy J. wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, this topic has come up for discussion with some of my >>>>>>> colleagues, and I was hoping to get a few other perspectives. For a >>>>>>> public interface to a repository and/or digital library, would you >>>>>>> make the handle/PURL an active hyperlink, or just provide the URL >>>>>>>in >>>>>>> text form? And why? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My feeling is, making the URL an active hyperlink implies >>>>>>>confidence >>>>>>> in the PURL/Handle, and provides the user with functionality they >>>>>>> expect of a hyperlink (right or option-click to copy, or bookmark). >>>>>> >>>>>> A permanent URL should be displayed in the address bar of the user零 >>>>>> browser. Then, when users do what they are going to do anyway >>>>>>(select >>>>>> the link in the address bar & copy it), it will work. >>>>> >>>>> ...which is why I intensely dislike Handles and PURLs. Man-up >>>>> (person-up? byte-up?) and make a long-term commitment to own the URLs >>>>> you >>>>> mint with your digital asset management system. > >-- >Peter Murray [log in to unmask] tel:+1-678-235-2955 > >Ass't Director, Technology Services Development http://dltj.org/about/ >Lyrasis -- Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers. >The Disruptive Library Technology Jester http://dltj.org/ >Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/