Eric Hellman wrote:
> http://catalog.library.jhu.edu/bib/NUM identifies a catalog record- I
> mean what else would you use to id the catalog record. unless you've
> implemented the http-range 303 redirect recommendation in your catalog
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/), it shouldn't be construed as
> identifying the thing it describes, except as a private id, and you
> should use another field for that.
>
Of course. But how is a link resolver supposed to know that, when all it
has is rft_id=http://catalog.library.jhu.edu/bib/NUM ??
I suggest that this is a kind of ambiguity in OpenURL, that many of us
are using rft_id to, in some contexts, simply provide an unambiguous
identifier, and in other cases, provide an end-user access URL (which
may not be a good unambiguous identifier at all!). With no way for the
link resolver to tell which was intended.
So I don't think it's a good idea to do this. I think the community
should choose one, and based on the language of the OpenURL spec, rft_id
is meant to be an unambiguous identifier, not an end-user access URL.
So ideally another way would be provided to send something intended as
an end-user access URL in an OpenURL.
But OpenURL is pretty much a dead spec that is never going to be
developed further in any practical way. So, really, I recommend avoiding
OpenURL for some non-library standard web standards whenever you can.
But sometimes you can't, and OpenURL really is the best tool for the
job. I use it all the time. And it constantly frustrates me with it's
lack of flexibility and clarity, leading to people using it in ambiguous
ways.
Jonathan
Received on Mon Sep 14 2009 - 13:46:39 EDT