[gcs-pcs-list] on using URIs

[Daniel Chudnov]

On Feb 28, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Mike Rylander wrote:
>
> IOW, two servers serve the URI "urn:isbn:123456789X"; do we assume
> that they point to the same item or serve the same content (assuming
> overlap in formats)? (Perhaps ISBN is the wrong identify to use in
> examples, what with its know issues regarding reuse ...)

Personally, I wouldn't assume anything.  Users do crazy things, and  
we shouldn't try to stop them... indeed we want to help them! :)


>> If it matters, I'm not assuming anything about content itself.  I'm
>> format-agnostic, and don't believe we can impose any "truth" of  
>> what an
>> "original" or "correct" format for an object is.  That's a hard  
>> enough
>> problem without trying to address it in unAPI.  We just want to be  
>> able
>> to know if people are talking about the same thing (w/r/to  
>> identifiers).
>
> Sure.  Which means that users /should/ use the original unAPI server
> to retrieve objects, even if they've seen the same "thing" elsewhere,
> perhaps even in the same format.  I would go as far as to write that
> explicitly into the unAPI spec (using standard RFC "SHOULD" or even
> "MUST" language).

Ach, I meant exactly the opposite.  I can get the "green o'reilly  
javascript book" off my bookshelf.  Or my neighbor's bookshelf.  Or  
online with safari.  Or at the bookstore down the road.  Or from  
amazon or powell's or quantum.  It's up to me to judge whether I  
really need the newer edition or not, and whether the manifestation  
in my hand is sufficient, right?

Same for articles.  You can openurl-resolve to a suite of online  
sites.  You can copy it from print.  You can get a scanned pdf via  
your ILL office.  You can read it from your course reserve readings  
page.  You can get a copy from a friend.

None of those varied scenarios say anything about the "original"  
source of the materials.  I don't think we have any chance to improve  
on that way things work, so I wouldn't want to spec to attempt to  
change behavior.  Content's a tramp, and nobody will only use our  
own, single systems.  unAPI should simply help make movement of  
information across applications slightly more robust, and it's still  
up to users to decide whether what they have in front of them is  
sufficient.


> If the content (value, not structure) of the URI is important (i.e.,
> the spec says "try to use 'urn:isbn:123456789x' instead of
> 'tag:gapines.org:2006:record/12345'"), then why would someone with a
> Amazon greasemonkey script use the site-local unAPI server instead of
> the, arguably more prevalent/complete/well-know, Amazon webservice
> copy of the object?

For one thing: what one server has for an identifier might be more  
relevant for some specific use context than another.

For another:  why not use both?  I've been thinking about adding LC  
SRU results for urn:isbn:* queries to OPA to see what it would be  
like to have those side-by-side with amazon results.

   -Dan