Re: requesting XML records

> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:01:23 -0000
> From: "Matthew Dovey" <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>
> 
> > I would like to know what the disadvantages _are_ before agreeing
> > to discard this approach [allocating sub-OIDs of the XML
> > record-syntax OID]!  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.

OK, I can buy that.

> 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.

Ah yes, this rings a bell.

> Also, if we already have a persisent URI for a schema - why create
> yet another one!

True.  OK, I accept that this approach is flawed.

> > 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...

Then we really need to figure out why we passed amendment 5
(http://lcweb.loc.gov/z3950/agency/amend/am5.html)

-- 

	Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>
	Software Engineer, Index Data UK.