Re: holdings proposal

Joe

i dont have strong feelings about this but i tend to agree with you - if
it gets changed i wont be too upset but i also dont see the need fo it

mark


On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Johan Zeeman wrote:

> 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 15:25:32 UTC