Talk:PubMan Func Spec OpenURL Mapping

COinS versus OpenURL

COinS:

• +   can be offered for every user (because the selection of link resolver is done by user)
• +   can be used for other services and not link resolving only
• -   requires the user to install an extension for his browser

OpenURL:

• -   points to exactly one link resolver or link resolver registry
• +   can be used without additional installation

Please note that COinS are of advantage if a system does not know to which link resolver a specific visitor belongs to - this is very often the case for free available databases and repositories. Subscription based resources can map users to the institution granting the access. Integrating a lookup in an OpenURL resolver registry could bridge the gap. --Inga 15:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

COinS could be nice addition for html output of the CitationStyleManager as well, i.e. Wikipedia automatically adds COinS to all references specified by a specific template, see information in wikipedia --Inga 15:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To understand better, how much the OpenURL metadata distinguish from COINS metadata? From these comments to me seems like COinS is better alternative. --Natasa 07:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

there is no difference in terms of (bibliographic) metadata between OpenURL and COinS. COinS (context objects in spans) is merely a mechanism of embedding OpenURL metadata (context objects) in HTML (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COinS ).--Robert 08:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's how I also understood it. but isn't it that COinS implementation would be then better than OpenURL? Or I am missing a point in here?

Context Objects in Span

Open Uniform Resource Locator

Coordinated Universal Time

Hypertext Markup Language