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

Re: holdings proposal

From: Johan Zeeman <joe.zeeman@tlcdelivers.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:46:44 -0500
Message-ID: <016601c17c33$3cfe7550$9539910c@tlcdelivers.com>
To: "Ray Denenberg" <rden@loc.gov>, "zig" <www-zig@w3.org>
I seem to be the only one who cares about this.  While I still think that it
adds unnecessary additional complexity to the schema, and that the
information that I understand the Danes wish to transfer can readily be
carried with the existing schema in a manner only marginally more complex
than they are proposing, I apparently haven't been able to convince the
proposers.  I've said my piece, and you, Ray, may resolve this impasse as
you wish.

Let me point out that there have been no efforts to "develop a more perfect
schema", especially as part of this discussion.  Although I wouldn't want to
suggest that the present schema is anything like perfect, it's unfortunate
that we will be ending up with a less satisfactory schema than the one we
have.  In the end, however, it's a pretty minor issue.

j.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Denenberg" <rden@loc.gov>
To: "zig" <www-zig@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 2:01 PM
Subject: holdings proposal


> 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 14:47:34 GMT

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