W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-zig@w3.org > December 2001

holdings proposal

From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 14:01:50 -0500
Message-ID: <3C0BCC1E.A71B01BC@loc.gov>
To: zig <www-zig@w3.org>
We need to bring the holdings-schema proposal to closure very soon. To that end,
I propose we accept it.

Right now the Danish implementors have an urgent need for this to be resolved.
There are contracts on hold.

If there are other implementation efforts with similar urgency, or for which
adoption of this proposal would cause a problem, please tell us.  Otherwise I
ask that you accept the proposal.

If I thought that the proposal was technically flawed I wouldn't be suggesting
this. I don't think it's necessarily the best approach, and I appreciate efforts
to develop a more perfect schema, but this has gone on for years now.

One perspective is that the schema is fine without the amendment, but I think
that another equally valid perspective is that although the proposal isn't
pretty, it's necessary because of  flaws in the existing schema. I don't think
it's productive to debate this point much longer.

I think at the core of this issue is this:  The Danish group has decided that
they do not want to recurse the bib part (they do not model childBibParts). And
I believe that this is the sort of decision that an individual country should be
able to make for itself and reflect in a national profile.

Of course this weakens the prospect for global interoperability for holdings,
but I've heard people say that holdings is so overwhelmingly complex anyway that
the prospect of absolute, international interoperability between arbitrary
systems is unlikely, except at the summary level.

So, if the Danish group doesn't need childBibParts, then from their perspective,
recursion of bibPart is un-necessarily complex.  But they're not proposing to
undo that recursion.  Their asking us to let enumeration and chronology recurse,
which is necessary if bibPart does not recurse. Their profile would specify no
recursion of bibPart and recursion for enumeration and chronology. Another
national profile might specify recursion of bibpart and no recursion for
enumeration and chronology.

If you  feel that adoption of this proposal created a hardship for you, please
speak up in the next few days.

--Ray
Received on Monday, 3 December 2001 14:04:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 October 2009 06:12:22 GMT