Tony's post highlights Knol's "service" URIs. Another issue is that many Knol entries have nice long lists of unlinked references. The HTML code behind the references is very sparse.
Might the DOI be of use in linking out from these references? I think so. Then, of course, there's the issue of DOIs for Knols...
With Library of Congress sometime back (Feb. '08) announcing LCCN Permalinks and NLM also (Mar. '08) introducing simplified web links with its PubMed identifier one might be forgiven for wondering what is the essential difference between a DOI name and these (and other) seemingly like-minded identifiers from a purely web point of view. Both these identifiers can be accessed through very simple URL structures:
Essentially the typical DOI link presents an elementary web-based URL which performs a useful redirect service. What is different about this and, say a PURL, which offers a similar redirect service? What's the big deal?
(Continues below.)
As the range of public services (e.g. RSS) offered by publishers has matured this gives rise to the question: How can they expose their public data so that a user may discover them? Especially, with DOI there is now in place a persistence link infrastructure for accessing primary content. How can publishers leverage that infrastructure to advantage?
Anyway, I offer this figure as to how I see the current lie of the land as regards DOI services and data.
 |
| Legend - Current DOI service architecture showing data repositories, service access points, and open/closed data domains. |
At left of the figure are services operated by CrossRef on its own metadata database which support a) publisher lookups of DOI, and b) third-party metadata services (DOI-to-metadata and metadata-to-DOI conversions). These might best be labelled protected services since they are not freely available: the first is open to members at a cost, while the second is free but to associated organizations only – members, affiliates, etc.
The term open data is used here in the sense implied by the current W3C SWEO LOD (Linking Open Data) Project. Open data is public data unencumbered by any access restrictions. By contrast, closed data is data that has some access restrictions placed on it – even data that is open to affiliates. (This is not an issue that LOD addresses directly, although it is implied that data is globally ‘open’, i.e. public.)
The current DOI service architecture thus breaks down as:
Note that a DOI is ‘resolved’ into state data registered with it, or as ISO CD 26324 puts it: “Resolution is the process of submitting a specific DOI name to the DOI system and receiving in return the associated values held in the DOI resolution record for one or more types of data relating to the object identified by that DOI name.”
So, how might publishers best leverage this DOI service architecture to expose their public data?
So, why is it just so difficult to reference OpenURL?
Apart from the standard itself (hardly intended for human consumption - see abstract page here and PDF here - and don't even think to look at those links - they weren't meant to be cited!), seems that the best reference is to the Wikipedia page. There is the OpenURL Registry page at http://openurl.info/regsitry but this is just a workshop. Not much there beyond the OpenURL registered items. (And why does the page seem uncertain as to whether it's a "repository" or a "registry"? Is there no difference between those terms?) The only other links are to a mix of HTML and PDF resources. (There really should be a health warning on links to PDFs - they are just not browser friendly documents.) And, I do have to wonder at this: the registry page has a link to the unofficial 0.1 version but not to the 1.0 standard. Er, why? And don't even try this link: http://openurl.info/. Not much info there.
Where else to go? The NISO site allows a search on "openurl" which returns links to the standard and to other related documents.
And then there's the community site http://openurl.code4lib.org/ targeted at developers and its Planet OpenURL which is a useful source for current awareness.
Me, I'm sticking with the Wikipedia page as the best reference for OpenURL. How odd that OpenURL aimed at improving linking on the Web should not have it's own simple access point. Thank heavens at least that DOI has a single reference point: http://doi.org/.
Hadn't really noticed before but was fairly gobsmacked by this notice I just saw on the DOI® Handbook:
**Please note that Chapter 9, Operating Procedures is for Registration Agency personnel only.**DOI® Handbook
doi:10.1000/182
http://www.doi.org/hb.html
And, indeed, the Handbook's TOC only reconfirms this:
9 Operating procedures**The RA password is required for viewing Chapter 9.
9.1 Registering a DOI name with associated metadata
9.2 Prefix assignment
9.3 Transferring DOI names from one Registrant to another
9.4 Handle System® policies and procedures
9.4.1 Overview
9.4.2 Policies and Procedures
9.4.3 Requirements for Administrators of Resolution Services
9.4.4 Protocols and Interfaces
9.5 DOI® System error messages
That's spooky. A book with a hidden chapter. I really don't like that at all. Especially on a book aiming to provide general information and guidance. Seems to be that if that information needs to be kept private to RA's then it has no business rubbing shoulders with public information. I would suggest that the material be opened up or else moved out. Makes me feel so second class.
Just a couple comments about CrossTech:
1. Shouldn't it (or couldn't it) be linked to from the CrossRef home page? (This is a public read list after all and so should be made more widely available.) Maybe at some point could be announced on some lists of interest.
2. Would be very nice to (at least) have a count of membership. I would also like to canvas opinions about making names of the membership public. What do others think about this?
At the end of the day though this facility needs to be driven, otherise it will end up being just another pier over the water (i.e. a 'disappointed bridge' And sorry for cribbing again from JAJ).
At last week's PRISM Face to Face meeting at Time Inc. (NY), Linda Burman raised the question of how (STM) publishers were using PRISM beyond RSS. I gave a brief presentation of how we at Nature were using PRISM: RSS (well you all know about that), Connotea (our social bookmarking tool), SRU (Search/Retrieve by URL), and OTMI (Open Text Mining Interface - which we'll shortly be making available for wider comment). Be interested to learn if anyone else is using PRISM in other ways.
On the iSpecies blog Rod Page describes how he extracts DOIs from Google Scholar results - he does use the CrossRef OpenURL interface and Connotea to get DOIs too. He also says "DOIs are pretty cool" which is good!
On another blog post to SemAnt Page describes how he uses LSIDs and DOIs for Ant literature.
It seems that there is more and more of this type of use of the DOI so its great we have the OpenURL interface. Could the type of stuff that Page is doing be helped by publishers embedding metadata in their HTML pages? This could include licensing info and information for search engine crawlers.
Continue reading "Embedding standardized metadata in HTML" »
Posted by special permission from EPS www.epsltd.com.
EPS INSIGHTS :: 01/08/2006
-------------------------------------
On the web: http://www.epsltd.com/locate.asp?go=updateNotes
Search the archive: http://www.epsltd.com/locate.asp?go=search
-------------------------------------
SEMANTIC WEB: GOOGLE HAS THE ANSWERS, BUT NOT THE QUESTIONS
* The Google v. Semantic Web discussion at the AAAI (American Association for Artificial Intelligence) featured plenty of confrontation and even some rational argument, but it may chiefly be remembered as the day when Google responded to the challenge of semantic web thinking by saying that the semantic web movement did not matter - thereby demonstrating that it did.
by David Worlock, Chairman
Continue reading "SEMANTIC WEB: GOOGLE HAS THE ANSWERS, BUT NOT THE QUESTIONS" »