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 22:14:59 GMT
Message-Id: <200303252214.h2PMExq02409@badger.miketaylor.org.uk>
To: matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk
CC: rden@loc.gov, www-zig@w3.org, carrol.lunau@NLC-BNC.CA, slavko@mun.ca

> 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.
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 17:15:55 GMT

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