- From: Adam Dickmeiss <adam@indexdata.dk>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:12:05 +0100
- To: zig <www-zig@w3.org>
- Cc: Lunau Carrol <carrol.lunau@NLC-BNC.CA>, slavko@mun.ca
There are pragmatic advantages of using Element Set Name. I just don't understand why the uri in schema was introduced in Z39.50. -- Adam On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 02:38:12PM -0500, Ray Denenberg wrote: > > 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. > > 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. > > 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). But we didn't think this through carefully > enough. Do we mean a schema, or a namespace? On > one hand, there isn't really a unique uri for a > schema, hence the suggestion to use a namespace > uri; on the other hand there isn't always a 1-1 > correspondence between a schema and namespace > (usually, but not always). -- Adam Dickmeiss mailto:adam@indexdata.dk http://www.indexdata.dk Index Data T: +45 33410100 Mob.: 212 212 66
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 17:12:08 UTC