[gcs-pcs-list] on using URIs

[Daniel Chudnov]

On Mar 1, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>
>> Lots of complexity averted for end-user/developers.  I'm just saying.
>
> I'm not convinced that this:
>
> url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1126%2Fscience. 
> 275.5304.1320
>
> is significantly more difficult to process than this:
>
> uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1126%2Fscience.275.5304.1320

The difference is that you already understand OpenURL.  99.96% of the  
rest of the developer world doesn't. :)

But still:  are you saying, therefore, that unAPI itself is not  
worthwhile?  It's good for you to share this opinion here, but it  
isn't clear to me what you mean by it.

And not to beat a dead horse further, but...

There's no problem with layering unAPI implementations over OpenURL  
implementations.  That it was fairly easy for you to accomplish is a  
good thing, and is a positive result indicating that the spec's  
heading in the right direction.  Indeed, this kind of outcome is a  
stated goal of the spec, and you were first to demonstrate this!

There's a problem with asking the world to implement OpenURL 1.0:   
it'll never happen.

That the chances of the world implementing unAPI are only slightly  
better doesn't keep me up all night anymore.  Just a lengthy part of  
the night. :)

   -Dan