Re: Changes vs. new element

For those of us who do not have institutional journal access, could 
someone post a few screen shots of what you get? As a non-affiliate I 
had no idea that Google was doing this!

Thanks,
kc

On 8/2/13 5:09 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 3:19 AM, Alf Eaton <eaton.alf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1 August 2013 20:03, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/1/13 11:05 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I can be permitted to fantasize about a library scenario for a
>>>> moment, if the search engine recognized via your location or IP
>>>> address that you were in or near a library, it could serve as your
>>>> library catalogue and display the additional metadata when it was
>>>> actually useful to you (much as it detects when you're looking up
>>>> movies, it can show you the local movie listings, including name &
>>>> address of the theatre, immediately rather than forcing you to click
>>>> through).
>>>
>>>
>>> That was my first fantasy as well. See:
>>>
>>> http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2012/09/rich-snippets.html
>>
>> That's kind of what Google Scholar does
>> <https://www.google.com/intl/en/scholar/libraries.html>: IP address
>> ranges and library serials holdings => appropriate links to article
>> full text through the library resolver, when the library has access.
>
> Right-o Alf, and we discussed something along these lines on-list back
> in November too:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2012Nov/0002.html
>
>> It's particularly annoying that - as far as I know - libraries only
>> publish this holdings file to Google, rather than making it available
>> for everyone.
>
> I think that's the default behaviour, but at Laurentian University
> we've made ours publicly available. We were experimenting with a
> commercial discovery layer, and my hope was that rather than sending
> them the custom format that to express electronic holdings their way,
> I could just point them at our Google Scholar institutional holding
> file and they could work with an existing format that we were already
> updating on a regular basis... but no. Trying to keep this on-topic, I
> gather we're all hoping that schema.org markup will be enough of a
> standard that we can avoid similar such painful exercises in the
> future :)
>
>> Keeping up-to-date with availabililty of particular items would be too
>> much for a crawler, as it changes too quickly, so there would need to
>> be a push API, like there is for Google Shopping
>> <https://developers.google.com/shopping-content/>, updated with every
>> availability change. Alternatively, as long as the library can resolve
>> an OpenURL query, tools like <http://www.libraryextension.com/> can
>> look up availability of single items on demand.
>
> I was thinking that if you have a sitemap that lists all of your
> resources, a persistent URL for each resource, and standardized
> structured data on the resulting page that shows you the availability
> of items for that resource on-demand, what do you need OpenURL for...
> but yes, search engines aren't going to want to add a 1 second delay
> for a live response to availability, so a push API seems warranted
> there; and plugins like LibX / libraryextension etc need some
> standardized search API. I helped teach LibX to speak Evergreen years
> ago, but standards are good.
>
> I guess we're getting pretty far off-topic from "Changes vs new
> element" in schema bibex land, though.
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Friday, 2 August 2013 14:20:27 UTC