W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-zig@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Requesting XML records via Z39.50

From: Archie Warnock <warnock@awcubed.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:24:24 -0500
Message-ID: <497E0DE8.40804@awcubed.com>
To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>
CC: www-zig@w3.org

Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> I would like to revisit the implementor agreement on "Requesting XML
> Records",  http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/agree/request-xml.html, as it
> has been many years since it we've discussed it, and it does seem to
> warrant some clarification.

And note that the link in that page
(http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/records.html) is no longer valid.

> Briefly,  to retrieve records according to a specific XML schema using
> Z39.50 (if you DON'T want to use compSpec):
> 1. XML is specified as the record syntax,  specifically 'xml-b':
> 1.2.840.10003.5.112.
> 2. The schema identifier is specified as the element set name.

Somehow I missed the original Implementor's Agreement and Isite has been
happily chugging along without it.  We don't use compSpec in Isite but
the majority of uses are homogeneous enough that we haven't had to (nor
been asked to) rely on the agreement.  The old XML OID (we've been using
1.2.840.10003.5.109.10) is sufficient for us - I just return the only
XML we know about - ie, the record we ingested.  This works reasonably
well since the schema is usually either known or agreed to a priori or
included in the XML anyway, in which case the returned XML is
self-documenting and it's up to the requesting client what to do with it.

I have no objection to implementing the convention, provided there's no
implied agreement to _transform_ records into the requested schema.  My
inclination would be to return either the record, if we know and can
provide the particular schema or to return an error if we don't (ie, it
would be treated like an unsupported element set).



-- Archie Warnock                         warnock@awcubed.com
-- A/WWW Enterprises                          www.awcubed.com
--       As a matter of fact, I _do_ speak for my employer.
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 07:30:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:07 UTC