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

Re: requesting XML records

From: Andy Powell <a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:28:23 +0000 (GMT)
To: Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>
cc: www-zig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.SO4.4.05.10303260013360.20095-100000@lamin.ukoln.ac.uk>

On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Mike Taylor wrote:

> I don't see a scaling problem with this at all -- in fact, I'd have
> thought scalability was one of the _strengths_ of this approach.  (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.)

This isn't quite true.  DCMI has defined and published an XML schema for
simple DC. See

  http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/

(I would hope that a similar schema for qualified DC will be released
shortly).

However, it is worth noting that the simple DC schema is specifically
intended for importing into other, applicationp-specific schemas.
Therefore it does not define a container element for the DC record - it is
up to the application to define that.

An example of how this works is demonstrated by the DC schema used in
version 2 of the OAI-PMH...

  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd

It would be nice for SRW to have used the same mechanism

  http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/dc.xsd

On the other hand, I don't see any obvious incompatabilities between
the resulting instance metadata generated by the two approaches?

Andy
--
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell       +44 1225 383933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 19:28:27 GMT

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