[Fim4l] Fwd: GetFTR

Bernd Oberknapp bo at ub.uni-freiburg.de
Thu Dec 5 02:00:09 CET 2019


On 05.12.19 00:53, Lisa Hinchliffe wrote:
> As I understand it, GetFTR is not a user facing tool. A user won't have any
> control over whether there are GFTR links in the tool they are using any
> more than they control any other aspects of what an interface presents to
> them.  From what I read, any discovery layer (what GFTR is calling a
> technology integration partner) will eventually be able to turn on GFTR
> links using the APIs. So, beyond Dimensions, Mendeley, etc. in the early
> pilot, GFTR links could eventually appear in Google Scholar (if Google
> wanted them to), in library subscribed databases (beyond Dimensions), in
> A&I services, in citation management tools, on ResearchGate, etc.

I obviously misunderstood what the service does from the information on 
the website...

> The issue of aggregator content and GFTR is not whether the aggregators
> might turn on GFTR links (which they may) but that aggregator hosted
> content is currently not able to be a target for a GFTR link. So, if the
> library doesn't have the content from the publisher directly, the GFTR link
> will convey to the user that the library does not have it ... even if it
> does on an aggregator. Some of us suspect that while libraries will see
> this as a flaw in GFTR, the publishers will see this as a feature and so
> this "limitation" (to use Roger's term in the SK post) is likely to persist.

I think the question is whether platforms that could integrate GetFTR 
would regard this as a flaw, and if so, if they would accept this 
because it is easier to implement than link resolver based techniques 
which have been available for a long time but haven't been used widely. 
I don't think that platforms that already can make use of the full 
holdings information for an institution (like Google Scholar when a 
library takes part in the library links program) would replace this with 
GetFTR, since this would make their service less attractive. Maybe they 
would offer GetFTR as an additional option for institutions that don't 
make their holdings available.

I'm wondering if GetFTR actually has an advantage regarding the seamless 
acess? For example why shouldn't the access work as seamlessly from 
Google Scholar or a library discovery service, even if GetFTR isn't used?

Best regards,
Bernd

-- 
Bernd Oberknapp
Gesamtleitung ReDI

Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
Universitätsbibliothek
Platz der Universität 2 | Postfach 1629
D-79098 Freiburg        | D-79016 Freiburg

Telefon:  +49 761 203-3852
Telefax:  +49 761 203-3987
E-Mail:   bo at ub.uni-freiburg.de
Internet: www.ub.uni-freiburg.de

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5627 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.daasi.de/pipermail/fim4l/attachments/20191205/9bea6d61/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the FIM4L mailing list