W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-zig@w3.org > March 2003

Re: My thoughts on the attribute discussion

From: Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:04:17 GMT
Message-Id: <200303241604.h2OG4HF09209@badger.miketaylor.org.uk>
To: rden@loc.gov
CC: www-zig@w3.org

> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:36:37 -0500
> From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
> This is a point worth  elaborating. When Sebastian
> says "capable of supporting multiple attribute
> sets" he means within a single search (I assume,
> since dan-1 numbering begins with 1, which means
> it doesn't "inherit" bib-1).

Oh, is that what "-1" means?  I thought it was an
honorific, like "-san" in Japanese :-)

> With respect to how many attribute sets a server
> can handle there are  three degrees of
> flexibility:
> (1) Some servers ignore the attribute set oid and
> just assume bib-1.
> (2) Some recognize the oid but cannot handle more
> than one in a search (because they are version 2).
> An example is GILS.
> (3) And some can handle multiple sets within a
> query.
> I understand the severe limitations of the first
> two types, and why it is so hard to consider
> implementing the new generation of attribute
> sets.  I'm not so sure I understand the
> limitations for the third type.

What limitations?  There is no mechanical problem here at all -- just
the self-imposed semantic one that the Attribute Architecture frowns
on mixing new, AA-compliant attributes with the pre-AA stuff in BIB-1.

In retrospect, I wonder whether we should have gone down the
theoretically unpleasant but pragmatic route of retroactively
identifying BIB-1 as an AA-compliant set, and encouraging people to
create new sets to be used with it when the would otherwise want new
BIB-1 attributes.  That might have helped encourage take-up of the AA.

That said, it seems to me that the NORZIG approach is exactly right:
they wanted a some Norwegian-specific attributes, which they quite
properly put in a spearate, new set; and they wanted some additional
attributes of more general bibliographic use, which they're now quite
properly offering back into the communal pot for such things.

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Basically, calling something Pleurocoelus means, ``Well,
	 its definitely a baby dinosaur.''  Beyond that, nothing is
	 certain" -- Matt Wedel.

Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
Received on Monday, 24 March 2003 11:04:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:05 UTC