[gcs-pcs-list] on using URIs

[Daniel Chudnov]

On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:31 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:

> I'm not saying unAPI isn't worthwhile. I'm saying that unAPI should be
> implemented as a profile of OpenURL. Everyone is so convinced  
> OpenURL is
> incomprehensible that their brains shut down immediately. I'm claiming
> that converting the existing unAPI protocol to be OpenURL 1.0  
> compliant
> is utterly trivial. Here's what it would take:
>
> 1) Add "url_ver= Z39.88-2004" in the "microformat" span
> 2) rename "uri" to "rft_id" in the span
> 3) Change the resolver so it doesn't blow up when it sees the url_ver
> parameter
> 4) Change the resolver to look for "rft_id" in place of "uri"
>
> You are now 100% OpenURL 1.0 compliant.

Yes... cool... I get it.  unAPI can be implemented as a profile of  
OpenURL, and in your opinion, it should be.  And unAPI conventions  
can be converted trivially to OpenURL.  Right.  No arguments here.

But:  are you saying we should change unAPI-the-specification to make  
it an OpenURL profile?  Your words don't say that explicitly, but  
your tone implies it, and regrettably, we're not at the same table at  
the bar anymore, so I can't guess whether this is really what you  
mean or not. :(

   -dc (whose brain arguably never started up today)