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

Re: requesting XML records

From: Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:35:03 GMT
Message-Id: <200303252135.h2PLZ3b02137@badger.miketaylor.org.uk>
To: rden@loc.gov
CC: www-zig@w3.org, carrol.lunau@NLC-BNC.CA, slavko@mun.ca

> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:38:12 -0500
> From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
> One suggestion is to assign object identifiers
> subordinate to 1.2.840.10003.5.109.10.  This idea
> has a number of disadvantages and unless someone
> wants to pursue this approach I'd prefer to
> discard it.

I would like to know what the disadvantages _are_ before agreeing to
discard this approach!  At first sight, it seems admirable.

> Another approach is to indicate the schema using
> comSpec.  This idea didn't catch on because many
> of the interested parties want a solution that
> will work with version 2.

... of course ...

> Yet another approach is to use the element set
> name parameter to indicate the schema.  Actually,
> this is pretty much what we agreed upon in
> principle at the last ZIG meeting (nearly a year
> ago).

Was I out of the room?  :-)

The element-set name really doesn't seem like the right place for this
at all, but I admit to not having any real recollection of that
discussion, so I may well be forgetting some compelling point.

> But we didn't think this through carefully
> enough.  Do we mean a schema, or a  namespace?

(If we go this route at all) We _definitely_ mean schema.  Namespace
is a complete red herring, and it is misleading even to mention it in
this context.

> On one hand, there isn't really a unique uri for a
> schema

There is if we make one up.

> My proposal is to adopt the approach used by SRW when
> faced with a similar problem. For the esn, use a
> URI that serves as an identifier for the desired
> schema (you don't have to call it a namespace).

I like the approach of using schema URIs, but I would like to consider
what the alternatives are to putting it in the element-set name.

> I understand the weakness of this approach, it
> won't scale well if we have thousands of schemas,
> but at the moment we don't, and we need a simple
> and quick solution.

I don't see a scaling problem with this at all -- in fact, I'd have
thought scalability was one of the _strengths_ of this approach.  (The
only problem is that, since the DCMI steadfastly refuse to define an
XML Schema for Dublin Core, a dozen different projects are busily at
work defining their own, subtly incompatible, versions.)

Hope this helps.

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "There is a game I like to play / I like to hit the town
	 on Friday night / and stay in bed until Sunday" -- The
	 Cranberries, who clearly don't have children.

Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 16:35:52 UTC

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