From eric at openly.com Sat Jun 4 13:41:19 2005 From: eric at openly.com (Eric Hellman) Date: Sat Jun 4 13:41:26 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] back to SPAN?: Implementing latent OpenURL on wikipedia: In-Reply-To: References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> Message-ID: Last night I decided to try implementing latent OpenURL on the Book sources page in Wikipedia. I ran into a brick wall trying to use the proposal we've had on trial for the last two months. It seems that Wikipedia is authoritarian about the A element. On the other hand, Wikipedia is very nice about letting authors use the SPAN element. I was able to implement a latent OpenURL using SPAN in about 2 minutes: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources#Experimental (using CLASS to mark the latent OpenURL and TITLE to contain an OpenURL "ContextObject".) (Note that use of ID is not an option for technical reasons.) Thinking about SPAN vs. A in this real-world application, I'm starting to consider the drawbacks of using A. There are many, many reasons that software like Wikipedia, blog software and similar things may be wary of giving authors free reign with the anchor element. In contrast, SPAN is innocuous. This is bit of going around in circles as we've been to SPAN before, but that's the point of doing trial implementations! -- Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, Inc. eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything From eric at openly.com Sat Jun 4 22:41:54 2005 From: eric at openly.com (Eric Hellman) Date: Sat Jun 4 22:42:03 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] SPAN proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> Message-ID: I noticed that Peter Binkley complains on his blog that he can't put latent OpenURL per the "rel" proposal into his blog entries because WordPress overrides the rel attribute. http://www.wallandbinkley.com/quaedam/?p=19 It was a clever proposal, but it seems DOA in the blogging world without a lot of effort, don't you think? Anyway, I've written up a version of the proposal based on SPAN tags. http://www.openly.com/openurlref/latent-span.html A side benefit of doing it this way is that the OpenURL crowd (herbert van de sompel, for example) really wants to see latent OpenURL use the ContextObject instead of the baseless OpenURL used in the previous proposals for more or less reasonable anti-miscegenistic reasons. In SPAN, it makes sense to do it that way. We'll do our part to test this out. Please, feedback and especially reports of successful placements are desired. -- Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, Inc. eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything From alf at hubmed.org Sun Jun 5 04:02:51 2005 From: alf at hubmed.org (Alf Eaton) Date: Sun Jun 5 04:03:02 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] SPAN proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> Message-ID: <89DA95B5-1221-4184-97EA-E392F0FDFD62@hubmed.org> On 05 Jun 2005, at 04:41, Eric Hellman wrote: > I noticed that Peter Binkley complains on his blog that he can't > put latent OpenURL per the "rel" proposal into his blog entries > because WordPress overrides the rel attribute. > http://www.wallandbinkley.com/quaedam/?p=19 WordPress is only replacing the rel attributes with 'nofollow' in the user-submitted comments, as an anti-spam measure. You almost certainly wouldn't be able to post or
markup in comments either. Besides, if the 'rel' attribute is no good, that means half of these proposed microformats wouldn't work either - http:// developers.technorati.com/wiki/MicroFormats - which is obviously not true. There are even WordPress plugins for generating most of them. As for the Wikipedia problem you mentioned earlier, if the latent OpenURL proposal was good enough there's no reason why they wouldn't build it into MediaWiki itself, so that every ISBN got a latent OpenURL on the 'Wikipedia:Book sources' page. I don't think these are good enough reasons not to use this format. alf. From alf at hubmed.org Sun Jun 5 04:30:19 2005 From: alf at hubmed.org (Alf Eaton) Date: Sun Jun 5 04:30:25 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] SPAN proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> Message-ID: On 05 Jun 2005, at 04:41, Eric Hellman wrote: > A side benefit of doing it this way is that the OpenURL crowd > (herbert van de sompel, for example) really wants to see latent > OpenURL use the ContextObject instead of the baseless OpenURL used > in the previous proposals for more or less reasonable anti- > miscegenistic reasons. In SPAN, it makes sense to do it that way. When you talk about using the ContextObject, does that mean embedding something like this in HTML: doi 10.1074/jbc.M004545200 or do you mean something else? alf. From alf at hubmed.org Sun Jun 5 04:51:18 2005 From: alf at hubmed.org (Alf Eaton) Date: Sun Jun 5 04:51:25 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] SPAN proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> Message-ID: On 05 Jun 2005, at 10:30, Alf Eaton wrote: > On 05 Jun 2005, at 04:41, Eric Hellman wrote: > > >> A side benefit of doing it this way is that the OpenURL crowd >> (herbert van de sompel, for example) really wants to see latent >> OpenURL use the ContextObject instead of the baseless OpenURL used >> in the previous proposals for more or less reasonable anti- >> miscegenistic reasons. In SPAN, it makes sense to do it that way. >> > > When you talk about using the ContextObject, does that mean > embedding something like this in HTML: > > > > > > doi > 10.1074/jbc.M004545200 > > > > > > or do you mean something else? > > alf. Actually, I suppose it's probably more likely to be something like which can only go into the HEAD of an HTML document, I presume? In the body of HTML you have to lose most of that information and just end up with or So how is that different from what we had before? alf. From eric at openly.com Sun Jun 5 17:01:43 2005 From: eric at openly.com (Eric Hellman) Date: Sun Jun 5 17:01:55 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] SPAN proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> Message-ID: >On 05 Jun 2005, at 10:30, Alf Eaton wrote: >>When you talk about using the ContextObject, does that mean >>embedding something like this in HTML: >> >> >> >> >> >> doi >> 10.1074/jbc.M004545200 >> >> >> >> >> there is an xml version of the ContextObject, but the simpler version, called "kev" is the "&" and "=" delimited string of key-value pairs that constitutes the part of the openURL right of the "?" >Actually, I suppose it's probably more likely to be something like > >content="&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:doi/110.1074/jbc.M004545200"> > >which can only go into the HEAD of an HTML document, I presume? > >In the body of HTML you have to lose most of that information and >just end up with > >title="&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:doi/110.1074/jbc.M004545200"> right >href="&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:doi/110.1074/jbc.M004545200"> wrong- that's not a URL >So how is that different from what we had before? believe it or not, the only difference is ctx_ver instead of url_ver, and the jargon that accompanies it. -- Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, Inc. eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything From eric at openly.com Sun Jun 5 17:16:59 2005 From: eric at openly.com (Eric Hellman) Date: Sun Jun 5 17:17:06 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] SPAN proposal In-Reply-To: <89DA95B5-1221-4184-97EA-E392F0FDFD62@hubmed.org> References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> <89DA95B5-1221-4184-97EA-E392F0FDFD62@hubmed.org> Message-ID: >On 05 Jun 2005, at 04:41, Eric Hellman wrote: > >>I noticed that Peter Binkley complains on his blog that he can't >>put latent OpenURL per the "rel" proposal into his blog entries >>because WordPress overrides the rel attribute. >>http://www.wallandbinkley.com/quaedam/?p=19 > >WordPress is only replacing the rel attributes with 'nofollow' in >the user-submitted comments, as an anti-spam measure. You almost >certainly wouldn't be able to post or
markup in >comments either. Besides, if the 'rel' attribute is no good, that >means half of these proposed microformats wouldn't work either - >http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/MicroFormats - which is >obviously not true. There are even WordPress plugins for generating >most of them. so wordpress may need a plugin. what about typepad, blogger, etc? Of course if span makes no difference, then the point is moot. > >As for the Wikipedia problem you mentioned earlier, if the latent >OpenURL proposal was good enough there's no reason why they wouldn't >build it into MediaWiki itself, so that every ISBN got a latent >OpenURL on the 'Wikipedia:Book sources' page. So we should talk with the "they" in MediaWiki- are they going to be easy to convince, and how long will it take? > >I don't think these are good enough reasons not to use this format. By themselves they are not good enough reasons. But I worry that these problems are the tip of an iceberg. latent OpenURL will need a good "sales" job, no matter how good the spec is. There are many different potential "customers" of this technology and I think bloggers of all stripes have needs that can't be ignored. -- Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, Inc. eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything From alf at hubmed.org Sun Jun 5 17:30:45 2005 From: alf at hubmed.org (Alf Eaton) Date: Sun Jun 5 17:30:53 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] SPAN proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> <89DA95B5-1221-4184-97EA-E392F0FDFD62@hubmed.org> Message-ID: <4260389A-1169-4FCF-9052-27501CAD3456@hubmed.org> On 05 Jun 2005, at 23:16, Eric Hellman wrote: >> On 05 Jun 2005, at 04:41, Eric Hellman wrote: >> >> >>> I noticed that Peter Binkley complains on his blog that he can't >>> put latent OpenURL per the "rel" proposal into his blog entries >>> because WordPress overrides the rel attribute. >>> http://www.wallandbinkley.com/quaedam/?p=19 >>> >> >> WordPress is only replacing the rel attributes with 'nofollow' in >> the user-submitted comments, as an anti-spam measure. You almost >> certainly wouldn't be able to post or
markup in >> comments either. Besides, if the 'rel' attribute is no good, that >> means half of these proposed microformats wouldn't work either - >> http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/MicroFormats - which is >> obviously not true. There are even WordPress plugins for >> generating most of them. >> > > so wordpress may need a plugin. what about typepad, blogger, etc? > Of course if span makes no difference, then the point is moot. What I mean is, you can put whatever markup you want in your own blog posts. It's only in comments and trackbacks that it gets removed (which is where Peter Binkley found he couldn't post a latent OpenURL, but where you wouldn't be able to post any kind of markup anyway, so it's irrelevant). None of the systems _need_ a plugin, it's just that sometimes a plugin is helpful if the markup can be complicated. alf. From alf at hubmed.org Sun Jun 5 18:22:25 2005 From: alf at hubmed.org (Alf Eaton) Date: Sun Jun 5 18:22:31 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] SPAN proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> Message-ID: <9705639B-AB39-45A4-A260-03CFF76358B9@hubmed.org> On 05 Jun 2005, at 23:01, Eric Hellman wrote: >> Actually, I suppose it's probably more likely to be something like >> >> > content="&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:doi/110.1074/ >> jbc.M004545200"> >> >> which can only go into the HEAD of an HTML document, I presume? >> >> In the body of HTML you have to lose most of that information and >> just end up with >> >> > title="&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:doi/110.1074/ >> jbc.M004545200"> >> > > right > > >> >> > > wrong- that's not a URL > > >> So how is that different from what we had before? >> > > believe it or not, the only difference is ctx_ver instead of > url_ver, and the jargon that accompanies it. I had a hard time finding a 1.0-compatible OpenURL resolver to test this on, but Ohio University has one. Both http://olinks.ohiolink.edu/olinks.php? ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:pmid/15588223 and http://olinks.ohiolink.edu/olinks.php? url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:pmid/15588223 seem to work ok, but I suppose the latter must be more correct. Though in http://www.openly.com/openurlref/latent-span.html there are both url_ver and ctx_ver in the same URL (plus rft_val_fmt as well). (I got rft_val_fmt and rft_id mixed up in the last email, sorry). Either way, I guess the latent OpenURL is either something like (though it doesn't really make sense that should have a title field anyway, and this still seems like semantic misusage) or (does there have to be a 'url_ctx_fmt' in there as well?) Does 'url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:pmid/1558822' not count as a ContextObject? alf. From eric at openly.com Sun Jun 5 21:28:30 2005 From: eric at openly.com (Eric Hellman) Date: Sun Jun 5 21:28:39 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] SPAN proposal In-Reply-To: <9705639B-AB39-45A4-A260-03CFF76358B9@hubmed.org> References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> <9705639B-AB39-45A4-A260-03CFF76358B9@hubmed.org> Message-ID: At 12:22 AM +0200 6/6/05, Alf Eaton wrote: >>believe it or not, the only difference is ctx_ver instead of >>url_ver, and the jargon that accompanies it. > >I had a hard time finding a 1.0-compatible OpenURL resolver to test >this on, but Ohio University has one. isi.1cate.com is fully 1.0 capable, but it won't fetch pubmed data for anonymous links >Both >http://olinks.ohiolink.edu/olinks.php?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:pmid/15588223 >and >http://olinks.ohiolink.edu/olinks.php?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:pmid/15588223 >seem to work ok, but I suppose the latter must be more correct. >Though in http://www.openly.com/openurlref/latent-span.html there >are both url_ver and ctx_ver in the same URL (plus rft_val_fmt as >well). only the second is a correct OpenURL, because url_ver is mandatory in an OpenURL. ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004 is implied by url_ver=Z39.88-2004 and can be omitted unless the ContextObject is stand-alone. > >(I got rft_val_fmt and rft_id mixed up in the last email, sorry). > >Either way, I guess the latent OpenURL is either something like >title="&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:pmid/15588223"> >(though it doesn't really make sense that should have a title >field anyway, and this still seems like semantic misusage) true. A serious disadvantage of SPAN is the limited number of attributes available- we have no other attributes to use, really, and "microformats" does it the same way >or >href="?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:pmid/15588223"> (does >there have to be a 'url_ctx_fmt' in there as well?) > >Does 'url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:pmid/1558822' not count as a >ContextObject? url_ver is not part of the ContextObject but ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:pmid/1558822 is a valid ContextObject -- Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, Inc. eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything From ross.singer at library.gatech.edu Mon Jun 6 09:20:15 2005 From: ross.singer at library.gatech.edu (Ross Singer) Date: Mon Jun 6 09:13:14 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] back to SPAN?: Implementing latent OpenURL on wikipedia: In-Reply-To: References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> Message-ID: <42A44D8F.9090302@library.gatech.edu> Actually, I've run into a problem with using the A tag that SPAN would clear up, as well. When working with the page DOM, it's a lot easier to append a child to a SPAN and do whatever you want with it than working with the A tag. So, I'm interested in exploring this avenue, too. -Ross. Eric Hellman wrote: > Last night I decided to try implementing latent OpenURL on the Book > sources page in Wikipedia. I ran into a brick wall trying to use the > proposal we've had on trial for the last two months. It seems that > Wikipedia is authoritarian about the A element. On the other hand, > Wikipedia is very nice about letting authors use the SPAN element. I > was able to implement a latent OpenURL using SPAN in about 2 minutes: > see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources#Experimental > (using CLASS to mark the latent OpenURL and TITLE to contain an > OpenURL "ContextObject".) (Note that use of ID is not an option for > technical reasons.) > > Thinking about SPAN vs. A in this real-world application, I'm starting > to consider the drawbacks of using A. There are many, many reasons > that software like Wikipedia, blog software and similar things may be > wary of giving authors free reign with the anchor element. In > contrast, SPAN is innocuous. > > This is bit of going around in circles as we've been to SPAN before, > but that's the point of doing trial implementations! From ross.singer at library.gatech.edu Mon Jun 6 10:14:16 2005 From: ross.singer at library.gatech.edu (Ross Singer) Date: Mon Jun 6 10:07:09 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] back to SPAN?: Implementing latent OpenURL on wikipedia: In-Reply-To: <42A44D8F.9090302@library.gatech.edu> References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> <42A44D8F.9090302@library.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <42A45A38.2020600@library.gatech.edu> Er, now that I've caught up on this... To clarify: I'm interested in exploring any other avenues. The potential problem with A tags is that they have a default behavior. SPAN (and possibly others... I haven't thought about it much) doesn't actually /do/ anything by itself, so the object itself can be ignored when working with it. I don't know if it's necessary to change the current proposal, I'm just saying I'm not opposed to discussion of alternatives. -Ross. Ross Singer wrote: > Actually, I've run into a problem with using the A tag that SPAN would > clear up, as well. When working with the page DOM, it's a lot easier > to append a child to a SPAN and do whatever you want with it than > working with the A tag. > > So, I'm interested in exploring this avenue, too. > > -Ross. > > Eric Hellman wrote: > >> Last night I decided to try implementing latent OpenURL on the Book >> sources page in Wikipedia. I ran into a brick wall trying to use the >> proposal we've had on trial for the last two months. It seems that >> Wikipedia is authoritarian about the A element. On the other hand, >> Wikipedia is very nice about letting authors use the SPAN element. I >> was able to implement a latent OpenURL using SPAN in about 2 minutes: >> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources#Experimental >> (using CLASS to mark the latent OpenURL and TITLE to contain an >> OpenURL "ContextObject".) (Note that use of ID is not an option for >> technical reasons.) >> >> Thinking about SPAN vs. A in this real-world application, I'm >> starting to consider the drawbacks of using A. There are many, many >> reasons that software like Wikipedia, blog software and similar >> things may be wary of giving authors free reign with the anchor >> element. In contrast, SPAN is innocuous. >> >> This is bit of going around in circles as we've been to SPAN before, >> but that's the point of doing trial implementations! > > > _______________________________________________ > gcs-pcs-list mailing list > gcs-pcs-list@cipolo.med.yale.edu > http://cipolo.med.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/gcs-pcs-list > From gcs-pcs at agogme.com Mon Jun 6 11:43:19 2005 From: gcs-pcs at agogme.com (Thomas Dukleth) Date: Mon Jun 6 11:43:20 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] SPAN proposal In-Reply-To: <4260389A-1169-4FCF-9052-27501CAD3456@hubmed.org> References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> <89DA95B5-1221-4184-97EA-E392F0FDFD62@hubmed.org> <4260389A-1169-4FCF-9052-27501CAD3456@hubmed.org> Message-ID: <1761.165.247.41.168.1118072599.squirrel@165.247.41.168> 6 June 2005 The problem with the relation attribute seems to be poorly implemented use of the nofollow value. The relation attribute allows multiple values. The nofollow value should simply be added to the list of all previous values for the relation attribute. The solution should be to request that implementers of the relation attribute respect previous values when adding a new value. I do not see any reason here to abandon the use of latent OpenURLs in href attributes for tags such as the anchor tag, that would be visible to the user without a special plugin or rewriting proxy server. User visibility without special software is important to encourage the public use and understanding of OpenURLs. User visibility is also one of the major principles of the microformats from the link in Eric Hellman's message quoted below, http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/MicroFormats . " * design for humans first, machines second * be presentable and parsable * visible data is better than invisible metadata * adapt to current behaviors and usage patterns, e.g. (X)HTML, blogging" Other microformats such as Technorati tag relations, http://www.technorati.com/tag/ , would be lost if the relation attribute is simply overwritten. The blogging community must not be so foolish as to overwrite their own formats. Perhaps Technorati tag relations are not relevant to comments where the nofollow value is important against link spam, but then their format would have a smaller context than it might otherwise. It should not be especially difficult to persuade all the major implementers of the nofollow value for the relation attribute to adopt previous value preservation implementions. Thomas Dukleth Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com On Sun, June 5, 2005 5:30 pm, Alf Eaton said: > On 05 Jun 2005, at 23:16, Eric Hellman wrote: > >>> On 05 Jun 2005, at 04:41, Eric Hellman wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I noticed that Peter Binkley complains on his blog that he can't >>>> put latent OpenURL per the "rel" proposal into his blog entries >>>> because WordPress overrides the rel attribute. >>>> http://www.wallandbinkley.com/quaedam/?p=19 >>>> >>> >>> WordPress is only replacing the rel attributes with 'nofollow' in >>> the user-submitted comments, as an anti-spam measure. You almost >>> certainly wouldn't be able to post or
markup in >>> comments either. Besides, if the 'rel' attribute is no good, that >>> means half of these proposed microformats wouldn't work either - >>> http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/MicroFormats - which is >>> obviously not true. There are even WordPress plugins for >>> generating most of them. >>> >> >> so wordpress may need a plugin. what about typepad, blogger, etc? >> Of course if span makes no difference, then the point is moot. > > What I mean is, you can put whatever markup you want in your own blog > posts. It's only in comments and trackbacks that it gets removed > (which is where Peter Binkley found he couldn't post a latent > OpenURL, but where you wouldn't be able to post any kind of markup > anyway, so it's irrelevant). None of the systems _need_ a plugin, > it's just that sometimes a plugin is helpful if the markup can be > complicated. > > alf. > > _______________________________________________ > gcs-pcs-list mailing list > gcs-pcs-list@cipolo.med.yale.edu > http://cipolo.med.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/gcs-pcs-list > From gcs-pcs at agogme.com Mon Jun 6 12:00:31 2005 From: gcs-pcs at agogme.com (Thomas Dukleth) Date: Mon Jun 6 12:00:33 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] back to SPAN?: Implementing latent OpenURL on wikipedia: In-Reply-To: <42A45A38.2020600@library.gatech.edu> References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> <42A44D8F.9090302@library.gatech.edu> <42A45A38.2020600@library.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <3837.165.247.41.168.1118073631.squirrel@165.247.41.168> 6 June 2005 I had found advantages in some contexts to using the span tag in my earliest experimentation. However, I had always nested the anchor attribute inside a span tag to obtain the desired behaviour in those contexts where the anchor attribute alone seemed problematic. I do not believe the issues I had without using the span tag were necessarily important. Nest a tag such as the anchor tag with the href attribute inside the span tag if you need the span tag. Quoting from my own earlier message. "I do not see any reason here to abandon the use of latent OpenURLs in href attributes for tags such as the anchor tag, that would be visible to the user without a special plugin or rewriting proxy server. User visibility without special software is important to encourage the public use and understanding of OpenURLs." Please see my earlier message in the thread "[gcs-pcs-list] SPAN proposal" for some fuller consideration. Thomas Dukleth Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com On Mon, June 6, 2005 10:14 am, Ross Singer said: > Er, now that I've caught up on this... > > To clarify: > I'm interested in exploring any other avenues. The potential problem > with A tags is that they have a default behavior. SPAN (and possibly > others... I haven't thought about it much) doesn't actually /do/ > anything by itself, so the object itself can be ignored when working > with it. > > I don't know if it's necessary to change the current proposal, I'm just > saying I'm not opposed to discussion of alternatives. > > -Ross. > > Ross Singer wrote: > >> Actually, I've run into a problem with using the A tag that SPAN would >> clear up, as well. When working with the page DOM, it's a lot easier >> to append a child to a SPAN and do whatever you want with it than >> working with the A tag. >> >> So, I'm interested in exploring this avenue, too. >> >> -Ross. >> >> Eric Hellman wrote: >> >>> Last night I decided to try implementing latent OpenURL on the Book >>> sources page in Wikipedia. I ran into a brick wall trying to use the >>> proposal we've had on trial for the last two months. It seems that >>> Wikipedia is authoritarian about the A element. On the other hand, >>> Wikipedia is very nice about letting authors use the SPAN element. I >>> was able to implement a latent OpenURL using SPAN in about 2 minutes: >>> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources#Experimental >>> (using CLASS to mark the latent OpenURL and TITLE to contain an >>> OpenURL "ContextObject".) (Note that use of ID is not an option for >>> technical reasons.) >>> >>> Thinking about SPAN vs. A in this real-world application, I'm >>> starting to consider the drawbacks of using A. There are many, many >>> reasons that software like Wikipedia, blog software and similar >>> things may be wary of giving authors free reign with the anchor >>> element. In contrast, SPAN is innocuous. >>> >>> This is bit of going around in circles as we've been to SPAN before, >>> but that's the point of doing trial implementations! >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gcs-pcs-list mailing list >> gcs-pcs-list@cipolo.med.yale.edu >> http://cipolo.med.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/gcs-pcs-list >> > _______________________________________________ > gcs-pcs-list mailing list > gcs-pcs-list@cipolo.med.yale.edu > http://cipolo.med.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/gcs-pcs-list > From eric at openly.com Mon Jun 6 12:32:40 2005 From: eric at openly.com (Eric Hellman) Date: Mon Jun 6 12:32:46 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] user visibility In-Reply-To: <1761.165.247.41.168.1118072599.squirrel@165.247.41.168> References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> <89DA95B5-1221-4184-97EA-E392F0FDFD62@hubmed.org> <4260389A-1169-4FCF-9052-27501CAD3456@hubmed.org> <1761.165.247.41.168.1118072599.squirrel@165.247.41.168> Message-ID: Easy implementation of user (and robot) visibility was one of the motivations behind the proposal for using anchor tag in Latent OpenURL. It is still possible to achieve similar visibility using the SPAN version, but at a cost of verbosity. in other words, in stead of find at default resolver find at default resolver As always, there's a trade-off, which is why we want to know what the tradeoffs are before finally settling on something, because at some pooint we'll just have to live with the tradeoffs we make. At 11:43 AM -0400 6/6/05, Thomas Dukleth wrote: >I do not see any reason here to abandon the use of latent OpenURLs in href >attributes for tags such as the anchor tag, that would be visible to the >user without a special plugin or rewriting proxy server. User visibility >without special software is important to encourage the public use and >understanding of OpenURLs. User visibility is also one of the major >principles of the microformats from the link in Eric Hellman's message >quoted below, http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/MicroFormats . > >" * design for humans first, machines second > * be presentable and parsable > * visible data is better than invisible metadata > * adapt to current behaviors and usage patterns, e.g. (X)HTML, >blogging" -- Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, Inc. eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything From gcs-pcs at agogme.com Mon Jun 6 12:44:59 2005 From: gcs-pcs at agogme.com (Thomas Dukleth) Date: Mon Jun 6 12:45:01 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] user visibility In-Reply-To: References: <20050524084536.2EB8A26AE7C@water-ox.its.caltech.edu> <89DA95B5-1221-4184-97EA-E392F0FDFD62@hubmed.org> <4260389A-1169-4FCF-9052-27501CAD3456@hubmed.org> <1761.165.247.41.168.1118072599.squirrel@165.247.41.168> Message-ID: <1187.165.247.41.168.1118076299.squirrel@165.247.41.168> 6 June 2006 Exactly, as I had written in reply to Ross Singer: nesting a tag with an href attribute inside a span tag, if the span tag is needed, is a better solution for visibility. Thomas Dukleth Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com On Mon, June 6, 2005 12:32 pm, Eric Hellman said: > Easy implementation of user (and robot) visibility was one of the > motivations behind the proposal for using anchor tag in Latent > OpenURL. > > It is still possible to achieve similar visibility using the SPAN > version, but at a cost of verbosity. > > in other words, > > in stead of > HREF="http://default.example.com?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.issn=1045-4438">find > at default resolver > > title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.issn=1045-4438"> > HREF="http://default.example.com?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.issn=1045-4438">find > at default resolver > > > As always, there's a trade-off, which is why we want to know what the > tradeoffs are before finally settling on something, because at some > pooint we'll just have to live with the tradeoffs we make. > > At 11:43 AM -0400 6/6/05, Thomas Dukleth wrote: >>I do not see any reason here to abandon the use of latent OpenURLs in >> href >>attributes for tags such as the anchor tag, that would be visible to the >>user without a special plugin or rewriting proxy server. User visibility >>without special software is important to encourage the public use and >>understanding of OpenURLs. User visibility is also one of the major >>principles of the microformats from the link in Eric Hellman's message >>quoted below, http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/MicroFormats . >> >>" * design for humans first, machines second >> * be presentable and parsable >> * visible data is better than invisible metadata >> * adapt to current behaviors and usage patterns, e.g. >> (X)HTML, >>blogging" > > -- > > Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, > Inc. > eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor > tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 > http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything > _______________________________________________ > gcs-pcs-list mailing list > gcs-pcs-list@cipolo.med.yale.edu > http://cipolo.med.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/gcs-pcs-list > From daniel.chudnov at yale.edu Mon Jun 6 13:07:01 2005 From: daniel.chudnov at yale.edu (Daniel Chudnov) Date: Mon Jun 6 13:07:03 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] xhtml2 timetable? Message-ID: <20050606170701.GH9083@curtis.med.yale.edu> I know the answer is generally "not soon enough to start doing this now" for our current topic. But, does anyone here have a sense of when XHTML2 might arrive, and roughly which year we might see support for it (and its apparently more-useful-to-us support for better-metadata in-more-places) in mainstream tools? -Dan -- Daniel Chudnov Yale Center for Medical Informatics (203) 737-5789 From gcs-pcs at agogme.com Mon Jun 6 14:21:37 2005 From: gcs-pcs at agogme.com (Thomas Dukleth) Date: Mon Jun 6 14:21:39 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] xhtml2 timetable? In-Reply-To: <20050606170701.GH9083@curtis.med.yale.edu> References: <20050606170701.GH9083@curtis.med.yale.edu> Message-ID: <49664.70.107.226.48.1118082097.squirrel@70.107.226.48> 6 June 2005 Whenever a new version of XHTML does arrive, the reason not to use a backwards compatible set of features should require a vastly superior improvement in utility etc. to justify breaking backwards compatibility. Thomas Dukleth Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com On Mon, June 6, 2005 1:07 pm, Daniel Chudnov said: > I know the answer is generally "not soon enough to start doing this now" > for our current topic. But, does anyone here have a sense of when XHTML2 > might arrive, and roughly which year we might see support for it (and its > apparently more-useful-to-us support for better-metadata in-more-places) > in mainstream tools? > > -Dan > > > -- > Daniel Chudnov > Yale Center for Medical Informatics > (203) 737-5789 > _______________________________________________ > gcs-pcs-list mailing list > gcs-pcs-list@cipolo.med.yale.edu > http://cipolo.med.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/gcs-pcs-list > From gcs-pcs at agogme.com Tue Jun 7 01:01:18 2005 From: gcs-pcs at agogme.com (Thomas Dukleth) Date: Tue Jun 7 01:01:20 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] Require Version 1.0 OpenURLs in Public Contexts Message-ID: <1439.165.247.47.109.1118120478.squirrel@165.247.47.109> 6 June 2005 Require version 1.0 OpenURLs in public and cross-institutional contexts. No identifying attribute will be necessary. It would be much easier to promote simple conversion tools for converting version 0.1 OpenURLs to version 1.0 OpenURLs for use in a public context. The application for enabling base URL modification for latent OpenURLs can perform any necessary conversion to 0.1 OpenURLs.if the link resolver requires such conversion. I wish I had realised this sooner. I had spent far too much time trying to find an embedded JavaScript solution for latent 0.1 OpenURLs that would be backwards compatible with older or simpler web browsers where the browser lacks proper support for using DOM. That is a difficult problem because JavaScript had never been designed to read the whole document before DOM support was added and thus there is no JavaScript support for reading an identifying attribute without DOM support. I had stopped looking at the issue over a month ago and had been working on other pressing projects and some related problems. The only reason I see for the need to have a latent OpenURL identified by any attribute is the problem of all the legacy 0.1 OpenURLs. There seems to be no means of reliably identifying version 0.1 OpenURLs as OpenURLs because they lack common required features to be certain that they are OpenURLs in all possible cases. Identifying version 1.0 OpenURLs as OpenURLs is trivial because the query string is required to begin with url_ver=Z39.88-2004 . I had implemented code in April to test for version 1.0 OpenURLs as an easy efficient procedure in a routine before the routine attempted to identify version 0.1 OpenURLs. Yet, 0.1 OpenURLs could not be be reliably identified as OpenURLs without an identifying attribute inaccessible to the simple JavaScript implementations without DOM support that I had hoped would work when a user might not always have access to a DOM supporting web browser. I had not shared my work because of this unresolved issue and other pressing projects. Have I missed something or could the solution really be as simple as requiring version 1.0 OpenURLs in a public context and promoting simple conversion tools? Thomas Dukleth Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com From eric at openly.com Tue Jun 7 09:48:03 2005 From: eric at openly.com (Eric Hellman) Date: Tue Jun 7 09:48:09 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] Require Version 1.0 OpenURLs in Public Contexts In-Reply-To: <1439.165.247.47.109.1118120478.squirrel@165.247.47.109> References: <1439.165.247.47.109.1118120478.squirrel@165.247.47.109> Message-ID: 1. the "query string" of on OpenURL is NOT required to start with "url_ver=Z39.88-2004". 2. for many of the reasons you cite, we are strongly supporting OpenURL 1.0 ONLY in latent openurl. 3. You raise an interesting point about whether an identifying attribute is needed. I think one is needed for a number of reasons. OpenURL 1.0 is used in a number of situations where it is not appropriate for an activating agent to take them. for example, article links to Proquest use the 1.0 OpenURL standard, so a plugin that takes ALL OpenURL links would break linking to proquest. >Require version 1.0 OpenURLs in public and cross-institutional contexts. >No identifying attribute will be necessary. It would be much easier to >promote simple conversion tools for converting version 0.1 OpenURLs to >version 1.0 OpenURLs for use in a public context. The application for >enabling base URL modification for latent OpenURLs can perform any >necessary conversion to 0.1 OpenURLs.if the link resolver requires such >conversion. > >I wish I had realised this sooner. I had spent far too much time trying >to find an embedded JavaScript solution for latent 0.1 OpenURLs that would >be backwards compatible with older or simpler web browsers where the >browser lacks proper support for using DOM. That is a difficult problem >because JavaScript had never been designed to read the whole document >before DOM support was added and thus there is no JavaScript support for >reading an identifying attribute without DOM support. I had stopped >looking at the issue over a month ago and had been working on other >pressing projects and some related problems. > >The only reason I see for the need to have a latent OpenURL identified by >any attribute is the problem of all the legacy 0.1 OpenURLs. There seems >to be no means of reliably identifying version 0.1 OpenURLs as OpenURLs >because they lack common required features to be certain that they are >OpenURLs in all possible cases. Identifying version 1.0 OpenURLs as >OpenURLs is trivial because the query string is required to begin with >url_ver=Z39.88-2004 . >I had implemented code in April to test for version 1.0 OpenURLs as an >easy efficient procedure in a routine before the routine attempted to >identify version 0.1 OpenURLs. Yet, 0.1 OpenURLs could not be be reliably >identified as OpenURLs without an identifying attribute inaccessible to >the simple JavaScript implementations without DOM support that I had hoped >would work when a user might not always have access to a DOM supporting >web browser. I had not shared my work because of this unresolved issue >and other pressing projects. > >Have I missed something or could the solution really be as simple as >requiring version 1.0 OpenURLs in a public context and promoting simple >conversion tools? > >Thomas Dukleth -- Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, Inc. eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything From gcs-pcs at agogme.com Tue Jun 7 10:54:22 2005 From: gcs-pcs at agogme.com (Thomas Dukleth) Date: Tue Jun 7 10:54:24 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] Require Version 1.0 OpenURLs in Public Contexts In-Reply-To: References: <1439.165.247.47.109.1118120478.squirrel@165.247.47.109> Message-ID: <4610.165.247.28.221.1118156062.squirrel@165.247.28.221> 7 June 2005 I guess that I misinterpreted the KEV documentation regarding the difference between version 0.1 and version 1.0 OpenURLs as it relates to the required form of the query string. Is the issue that the documented KEV usage is not strictly required for version 1.0 OpenURLs or that even the KEV documentation does not require url_ver=Z39.88-2004 to appear at the beginning of the query string? I assume this is not merely a question of the placement of url_ver=Z39.88-2004 as a required element somewhere in the query string but that url_ver=Z39.88-2004 is not required to appear at in the query string at all for version 1.0 OpenURLs. I also assume the issue is not about whether -2004 appears as part of the value as I have seen -2003 used in examples identified as version 1.0 OpenURLs. My tests only ever tested for the presence of url_ver=Z39.88 at the beginning of the query string, ignoring any date modifier. Regardless of where my misinterpretation arose, is there a means to reliably identify version 1.0 OpenURLs as OpenURLs from the information in the query string? Thomas Dukleth Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com On Tue, June 7, 2005 9:48 am, Eric Hellman said: > 1. the "query string" of on OpenURL is NOT required to start with > "url_ver=Z39.88-2004". > > 2. for many of the reasons you cite, we are strongly supporting > OpenURL 1.0 ONLY in latent openurl. > > 3. You raise an interesting point about whether an identifying > attribute is needed. I think one is needed for a number of reasons. > OpenURL 1.0 is used in a number of situations where it is not > appropriate for an activating agent to take them. for example, > article links to Proquest use the 1.0 OpenURL standard, so a plugin > that takes ALL OpenURL links would break linking to proquest. > >>Require version 1.0 OpenURLs in public and cross-institutional contexts. >>No identifying attribute will be necessary. It would be much easier to >>promote simple conversion tools for converting version 0.1 OpenURLs to >>version 1.0 OpenURLs for use in a public context. The application for >>enabling base URL modification for latent OpenURLs can perform any >>necessary conversion to 0.1 OpenURLs.if the link resolver requires such >>conversion. >> >>I wish I had realised this sooner. I had spent far too much time trying >>to find an embedded JavaScript solution for latent 0.1 OpenURLs that >> would >>be backwards compatible with older or simpler web browsers where the >>browser lacks proper support for using DOM. That is a difficult problem >>because JavaScript had never been designed to read the whole document >>before DOM support was added and thus there is no JavaScript support for >>reading an identifying attribute without DOM support. I had stopped >>looking at the issue over a month ago and had been working on other >>pressing projects and some related problems. >> >>The only reason I see for the need to have a latent OpenURL identified by >>any attribute is the problem of all the legacy 0.1 OpenURLs. There seems >>to be no means of reliably identifying version 0.1 OpenURLs as OpenURLs >>because they lack common required features to be certain that they are >>OpenURLs in all possible cases. Identifying version 1.0 OpenURLs as >>OpenURLs is trivial because the query string is required to begin with >>url_ver=Z39.88-2004 . >>I had implemented code in April to test for version 1.0 OpenURLs as an >>easy efficient procedure in a routine before the routine attempted to >>identify version 0.1 OpenURLs. Yet, 0.1 OpenURLs could not be be >> reliably >>identified as OpenURLs without an identifying attribute inaccessible to >>the simple JavaScript implementations without DOM support that I had >> hoped >>would work when a user might not always have access to a DOM supporting >>web browser. I had not shared my work because of this unresolved issue >>and other pressing projects. >> >>Have I missed something or could the solution really be as simple as >>requiring version 1.0 OpenURLs in a public context and promoting simple >>conversion tools? >> >>Thomas Dukleth > > -- > > Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, > Inc. > eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor > tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 > http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything > From eric at openly.com Tue Jun 7 11:20:49 2005 From: eric at openly.com (Eric Hellman) Date: Tue Jun 7 11:20:56 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] Require Version 1.0 OpenURLs in Public Contexts In-Reply-To: <4610.165.247.28.221.1118156062.squirrel@165.247.28.221> References: <1439.165.247.47.109.1118120478.squirrel@165.247.47.109> <4610.165.247.28.221.1118156062.squirrel@165.247.28.221> Message-ID: it's the position in the query String that is flexible. "url_ver=Z39.88-2004" will appear in all valid 1.0 OpenURLs. In other words, you can shuffle the order of the token delimited by "&" without changing the meaning of the OpenURL. "-2003" was a draft version of the standard. At 10:54 AM -0400 6/7/05, Thomas Dukleth wrote: >7 June 2005 > > >I guess that I misinterpreted the KEV documentation regarding the >difference between version 0.1 and version 1.0 OpenURLs as it relates to >the required form of the query string. Is the issue that the documented >KEV usage is not strictly required for version 1.0 OpenURLs or that even >the KEV documentation does not require url_ver=Z39.88-2004 to appear at >the beginning of the query string? I assume this is not merely a question >of the placement of url_ver=Z39.88-2004 as a required element somewhere in >the query string but that url_ver=Z39.88-2004 is not required to appear at >in the query string at all for version 1.0 OpenURLs. I also assume the >issue is not about whether -2004 appears as part of the value as I have >seen -2003 used in examples identified as version 1.0 OpenURLs. My tests >only ever tested for the presence of url_ver=Z39.88 at the beginning of >the query string, ignoring any date modifier. > >Regardless of where my misinterpretation arose, is there a means to >reliably identify version 1.0 OpenURLs as OpenURLs from the information in >the query string? > > >Thomas Dukleth > > >Thomas Dukleth >Agogme >109 E 9th Street, 3D >New York, NY 10003 >USA >http://www.agogme.com -- Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, Inc. eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything From gcs-pcs at agogme.com Tue Jun 7 16:49:50 2005 From: gcs-pcs at agogme.com (Thomas Dukleth) Date: Tue Jun 7 16:49:59 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] Require Version 1.0 OpenURLs in Public Contexts In-Reply-To: References: <1439.165.247.47.109.1118120478.squirrel@165.247.47.109> Message-ID: <49838.70.107.226.48.1118177390.squirrel@70.107.226.48> 7 June 2005 I am pleased that it is only a positional question concerning the placement of the url_ver value that I had been confused about for reliably identifying version 1.0 OpenURLs using the query string alone. Is there a way to reliably identify the version 1.0 OpenURLs that would be problematic if parsed as latent OpenURLs, such as those from ProQuest, using the only the query string? In what contexts would these problematic 1.0 OpenURLs appear? Would you provide an adequately varied set of examples of such troublesome OpenURLs for testing? Thomas Dukleth Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com On Tue, June 7, 2005 9:48 am, Eric Hellman said: > 1. the "query string" of on OpenURL is NOT required to start with "url_ver=Z39.88-2004". > > 2. for many of the reasons you cite, we are strongly supporting > OpenURL 1.0 ONLY in latent openurl. > > 3. You raise an interesting point about whether an identifying > attribute is needed. I think one is needed for a number of reasons. OpenURL 1.0 is used in a number of situations where it is not > appropriate for an activating agent to take them. for example, > article links to Proquest use the 1.0 OpenURL standard, so a plugin that takes ALL OpenURL links would break linking to proquest. > >>Require version 1.0 OpenURLs in public and cross-institutional contexts. No identifying attribute will be necessary. It would be much easier to promote simple conversion tools for converting version 0.1 OpenURLs to version 1.0 OpenURLs for use in a public context. The application for enabling base URL modification for latent OpenURLs can perform any necessary conversion to 0.1 OpenURLs.if the link resolver requires such conversion. >>I wish I had realised this sooner. I had spent far too much time trying to find an embedded JavaScript solution for latent 0.1 OpenURLs that >> would >>be backwards compatible with older or simpler web browsers where the browser lacks proper support for using DOM. That is a difficult problem because JavaScript had never been designed to read the whole document before DOM support was added and thus there is no JavaScript support for reading an identifying attribute without DOM support. I had stopped looking at the issue over a month ago and had been working on other pressing projects and some related problems. >>The only reason I see for the need to have a latent OpenURL identified by >>any attribute is the problem of all the legacy 0.1 OpenURLs. There seems >>to be no means of reliably identifying version 0.1 OpenURLs as OpenURLs because they lack common required features to be certain that they are OpenURLs in all possible cases. Identifying version 1.0 OpenURLs as OpenURLs is trivial because the query string is required to begin with url_ver=Z39.88-2004 . >>I had implemented code in April to test for version 1.0 OpenURLs as an easy efficient procedure in a routine before the routine attempted to identify version 0.1 OpenURLs. Yet, 0.1 OpenURLs could not be be >> reliably >>identified as OpenURLs without an identifying attribute inaccessible to the simple JavaScript implementations without DOM support that I had >> hoped >>would work when a user might not always have access to a DOM supporting web browser. I had not shared my work because of this unresolved issue and other pressing projects. >>Have I missed something or could the solution really be as simple as requiring version 1.0 OpenURLs in a public context and promoting simple conversion tools? >>Thomas Dukleth > > -- > > Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, Inc. > eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor > tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything > From eric at openly.com Thu Jun 9 12:10:36 2005 From: eric at openly.com (Eric Hellman) Date: Thu Jun 9 12:10:45 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] Re: openurl referrer In-Reply-To: <42A4BDAD.1050100@openly.com> References: <42A4BDAD.1050100@openly.com> Message-ID: Tom has implemented a version of the OpenURL Referrer plugin compatible with the SPAN spec. It's is available at http://www.openly.com/openurlref/openurlref2_0_1.xpi The A version is still at http://www.openly.com/openurlref/openurlref2_0.xpi You can try out a sample at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=1876175818#Experimental -- Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, Inc. eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything From gcs-pcs at agogme.com Fri Jun 10 14:17:16 2005 From: gcs-pcs at agogme.com (Thomas Dukleth) Date: Fri Jun 10 14:17:18 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] Re: openurl referrer In-Reply-To: References: <42A4BDAD.1050100@openly.com> Message-ID: <3227.165.247.26.205.1118427436.squirrel@165.247.26.205> 10 June 2005 The form of the sample latent OpenURL in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=1876175818#Experimental is the invisible to any user without an activating agent. Perhaps we might refer to this form of latent OpenURL as stealth latent OpenURL. Please take my suggested name with the humour it was intended. Eric Hellman had advocated user visibility even without an activating agent. In the thread "[gcs-pcs-list] user visibility", Eric provided the folowing form of visible latent OpenURL. " find at default resolver " In the most recent form of Eric Hellman's draft proposal for latent OpenURLs, http://www.openly.com/openurlref/latent-span.html , written earlier, the "Default Content" section provides for the possible use of the anchor tag nested inside the span tag as follows. " Link to Publisher " This form of the anchor tag provides a default link but is not an OpenURL. The OpenURL here is still invisible to the user without an activating agent. I suggest using an actual OpenURL with a default base in the anchor tag for visibility as well as functionality and provide any alternate non-OpenURL linking in adjacent links outside the span tag. This would conform to the example given in the "user visibility" thread Monday. Visible and functional latent OpenURLs that do not require an activating agent to point to even a non-existent default resolver will provide much more flexibility and accessibility to a wider variety of activating agents. Furthermore, they will also do more to promote OpenURLs to potential users without an activating agent already. They should have an adjacent link about using an activating agent to not confuse users who need an activating agent. Stealth latent OpenURLs will both impose a constraint on possible activating agents and do nothing for user awareness. Thomas Dukleth Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com On Thu, June 9, 2005 4:10 pm, Eric Hellman said: > Tom has implemented a version of the OpenURL Referrer plugin > compatible with the SPAN spec. It's is available at > > http://www.openly.com/openurlref/openurlref2_0_1.xpi > > The A version is still at > > http://www.openly.com/openurlref/openurlref2_0.xpi > > You can try out a sample at > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=1876175818#Experimental > > > -- > > Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, > Inc. > eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor > tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 > http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything > _______________________________________________ > gcs-pcs-list mailing list > gcs-pcs-list@cipolo.med.yale.edu > http://cipolo.med.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/gcs-pcs-list > 10 June 2005 The form of the sample latent OpenURL in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=1876175818#Experimental is the invisible to any user without an activating agent. Perhaps we might refer to this form of latent OpenURL as stealth latent OpenURL. Please take my suggested name with the humour it was intended. You had been advocating Thomas Dukleth Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com On Thu, June 9, 2005 4:10 pm, Eric Hellman said: > Tom has implemented a version of the OpenURL Referrer plugin > compatible with the SPAN spec. It's is available at > > http://www.openly.com/openurlref/openurlref2_0_1.xpi > > The A version is still at > > http://www.openly.com/openurlref/openurlref2_0.xpi > > You can try out a sample at > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=1876175818#Experimental > > > -- > > Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, > Inc. > eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor > tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 > http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything > _______________________________________________ > gcs-pcs-list mailing list > gcs-pcs-list@cipolo.med.yale.edu > http://cipolo.med.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/gcs-pcs-list > From eric at openly.com Wed Jun 22 16:46:41 2005 From: eric at openly.com (Eric Hellman) Date: Wed Jun 22 16:46:56 2005 Subject: [gcs-pcs-list] meeting at ALA? Message-ID: Would anyone on the list like to meet after the LITA President's Program (or some other time?) at ALA? Eric 2005 LITA/Brett Butler Entrepreneurship Award winner announced CHICAGO - Dan Chudnov is the 2005 recipient of the LITA/Brett Butler Entrepreneurship Award. Chudnov is a librarian who, currently, serves as a programmer at Yale's Center for Medical Informatics. "Dan Chudnov has demonstrated exemplary entrepreneurship over time in bringing together professionals to develop innovative information technology products for, and provide innovative services to, the library world," said Russ Bailey, award committee chair. "The LITA/Brett Butler Entrepreneurship Award Committee stands unanimous in selecting Dan Chudnov as the 2005 Award recipient." Chudnov played a major role in the Jointly Administered Knowledge Environment (JAKE), the open source tool for distributing information about journal and online journal products. While at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Dan's work was central in the development of DSpace, one of the leading content management software tools at the heart of numerous institutional repositories. Chudnov led in the creation of two online communities (oss4lib and usrlib) and in the organization of successful hackfests at Access2003 and Access2004. He has been described by a colleague as "a continual source of new ideas, and seems to be able to effortlessly bring people together to collaborate." Most recently, Chudnov led in the development of Unalog, an open source link sharing application that is finding wide usage and acceptance. Another colleague said, "no one is more influential in the area of Open Source software and the use of technology for social computing in libraries than Dan Chudnov." The LITA/Brett Butler Entrepreneurship Award recognizes exemplary entrepreneurship by providing an innovative product or service designed to meet the needs of the library world. Sponsored by Thomson Gale and the Library and Information Technology Association (LITA), a division of the American Library Association (ALA), the award includes a check for $5,000 and a certificate of recognition. The award will be presented at the LITA President's Program on Sunday, June 26, 2005, at the ALA Annual Conference in Chicago. Digital Searching to Digital Reading: Helping Users in an Online World You are cordially invited to the LITA President's program featuring Michael Lesk. The program will take place Sunday, June 26, 2005, 4:00 - 5:00, following the LITA Awards Reception, in the Grand Ballroom of the Hotel Inter-Continental. Michael Lesk is best known for work in electronic libraries, and the second edition of his book Understanding Digital Libraries was published in December 2004 by Morgan Kaufmann. Michael Lesk has worked in the computer research group at Bell Laboratories. He managed the computer science research group at Bellcore, then joined the NSF as head of the Division of Information and Intelligent Systems. In 2002 he joined the Internet Archive and since 2003 has been a Professor in the Library and Information Science Department of Rutgers University. He was recently elected to the U.S. National Academy of Engineering, in recognition of his contributions to UNIX applications, information systems, and digital libraries. LITA thanks Blackwell's Book Services for their sponsorship of the LITA President's Program and Awards Reception. -- Eric Hellman, President Openly Informatics, Inc. eric@openly.com 2 Broad St., 2nd Floor tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 http://www.openly.com/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything