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

Re: requesting XML records

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
Message-ID: <20030325221205.GA14520@indexdata.com>

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 October 2009 06:12:23 GMT