- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:45:16 -0500 (EST)
- To: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
- cc: ZIG <www-zig@w3.org>
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Ray Denenberg wrote: > Matthew Dovey wrote: > > > A few others have expressed the same view - the record format requested > > should be XML, and another (unspecificed) method should be used to request a > > specific DTD (or XSD). > > We had a discussion of this on the Bath list in January and concluded (I think) > that DTDs and schemas (XML schemas, that is) should be registered as Z39.50 > schemas (thus from a Z39.50 view there is no difference between an xml dtd and > and an xml schema; they are both Z39.50 schemas). When transmitting XML, "xml" > would always be the record syntax (no need for the dtd/schema to be > protocol-visible on retrieval). When requesting records to be retrieved in xml > in a specific dtd/schema, specify xml as the requested record syntax and > specify the dtd or schema as a Z39.50 schema. > Could we use URIs for schemas/dtds instead of having a centralised registry? There are going to be *thousands* of xml-based vocabularies out there, specified using a variety of schema formalisms. Maintaining a registry of each of these solely for the z39.50 community's use seems a huge undertaking. Dan
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2001 14:45:18 UTC