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

Re: requesting XML records

From: Theo van Veen <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:12:26 +0100
To: www-zig@w3.org
CC: theo van Veen <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl>
Message-ID: <3E825E0A.12841.6322F4@localhost>

I referred to the terminology used in the mail that I responded to (see below). It was 
certainly no my intention to confuse full and brief (which are supposed to be schemas) 
with simple and qualified (which refer to namespaces) and I do support the DCMI 
guidelines (which can be expressed in a schema).
My point is that requesting a certain types of records, responding certain types of 
records and accepting and understanding the responded records are three different 
things that does not perse have to be expressed by a single schema. 
Example: We defined an application profile that we encourage to be used for optimal 
functionality.  But we accept DC simple, we prefer to get DC qualified and we 
ackowledge the fact that some use the library application profile. Currently I do not 
know a descent way of requesting records in conformance with what I described.  

Theo


On 26 Mar 2003 at 23:33, Andy Powell wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Theo van Veen wrote:
> 
> > How many DC-brief schemas and how many DC-full schemas do we need.?
> > What is the difference between DC and DC-full. When I ask for DC, do I
> > get DC-full or DC-brief. What if a server only supports DC and I ask
> > for DC-brief? Do I get an error message or the server's best choice?
> 
> Just to note... DCMI does not use (or recognise) the terms 'DC-full' and
> 'DC-brief'.  It tends to use the terms 'simple DC' (or sometimes
> 'DC-simple') and 'qualified DC'.  Definitions of these phrases are
> provided in the document at
> 
> http://dublincore.org/documents/2002/12/02/dc-xml-guidelines/
> 
> (which will hopefully move from a proposed recommendation to a
> recommendation very shortly).
> 
> Assuming that you mean the same things by DC-brief and DC-full, I think it
> would be very unhelpful to start using different terminology.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Andy.
> 
> > Some do not accept "DC" but require the URI:
> > http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/dcschema/v1.0/ . Others use
> > http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ for requesting DC. And in OAI DC is
> > compulsary and it is called oai_dc, but is is just dc. Is there a
> > schema that allows me to say: "I prefer DC-brief, but I do understand
> > qualified DC-full and I will not crash when there are a few elements
> > from other namespaces"?
> > 
> > We introduce more and more incompatibility by overstructuring things in a non-functional way. Maybe it is time for a change. 
> > 
> > Theo 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >>> Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov> 26-03-03 16:12 >>>
> > 
> > joe_zeeman@notes.rlg.org wrote:
> > 
> > > But the version 2 way of doing it is still wrong, because the XML
> > > DTD/schema is NOT an element set name.  I want to be able to say both "I
> > > want a Dublin Core record in XML" and "I want a brief record".  The two are
> > > not mutually exclusive.  Version 2 does not provide a mechanism to say the
> > > 3 things we want to say:  XML AND Dublin Core AND Brief.
> > 
> > Joe -- Although we continue to maintain the clear distinction between syntax and
> > schema, we decided (also at the Dublin meeting --  maybe you were "out of the
> > room"?) not to perpetuate the distinction between schema and element set name, for
> > xml. Thus "DC-full" and "DC brief" would be two schemas.  This was the consensus at
> > Dublin.
> > 
> > --Ray
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 26 March 2003 20:12:47 GMT

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