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

RE: requesting XML records

From: Matthew Dovey <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:01:23 -0000
Message-ID: <149B1E6A2147804D9651886835D1999A2007C2@sers004.ouls.ox.ac.uk>
To: "Mike Taylor" <mike@indexdata.com>, <rden@loc.gov>
Cc: <www-zig@w3.org>, <carrol.lunau@NLC-BNC.CA>, <slavko@mun.ca>

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

From my recollection of the comspec approach - it was partly that we
weren't really defining different record syntaxes (its always XML) so
recordSyntax wasn't the right field. The fact we'd made that mistake
with MARC was not seen as a good reason for repeating the error.

There are some issues (not unsurmountable) - it could lead to a very
long list of registered XML schema (I can think of a dozen bibliographic
XML schemas off the top of my head). This could be tempered by not
registering anything until someone needs it. Also how to handle private
XML schema - using this OID prefix or a private one. Does that mean you
have to become a registered Z39.50 implementor (and get a private OID
prefix) just to use a private XML schema.

Also, if we already have a persisent URI for a schema - why create yet
another one!
> Was I out of the room?  :-)

I had it reported to me since I wasn't at the particular ZIG (I think it
was a ZIG or two ago, not the last one, but I may be wrong).
> 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.

I agree, but I thought comspec fitted the bill (I think I was one of the
proposers of that). But there is v2 to still support apparently...

> > 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

I can't see a scaling problem either.

> (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.)

Exactly - that's were having to register OIDs for each one (rather than
just use their URI) may not work!

Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 17:01:31 UTC

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