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

Re: Requesting XML records via Z39.50

From: Adam Dickmeiss <adam@indexdata.dk>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:58:05 +0100
Message-ID: <497E23DD.5020407@indexdata.dk>
CC: www-zig@w3.org

Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> Archie, I don't want anyone to change their implementation behavior 
> based on the existing or a revised agreement.  So this is useful 
> feedback, thanks. I would like to incorporate existing implementation 
> practice into the revised procedure.
> I think that the 110 record syntax was first registered with the idea 
> that the XML schema was known by private agreement.  (Subseqently we 
> registered 112 to use in the case when you want to also specify the 
> schema.)  It sounds like what you are doing is consisitent with what 
> we had in mind.  I'll write this into the revised agreement.
We're pretty much in the same wagon as Archie. AFAIK, we have never used 
any other OID for XML than the original one. Most often the element set 
name further specifies the requested schema. In other words, like the 
(xml-b) implementor's agreement but using the original OID.

/ Adam
> Any other feedback on this is also welcome.
> --Ray
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Archie Warnock" <warnock@awcubed.com>
> To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>
> Cc: <www-zig@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 2:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Requesting XML records via Z39.50
>> 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
>> -- 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 07:49:45 UTC

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