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

Re: Z39.50 proposal "Requesting XML Records (Revised 2009)" please comment by July 27

From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:51:38 -0400
Message-ID: <041701ca04a3$5b0e61d0$18af938c@lib.loc.gov>
To: <www-zig@w3.org>
 From: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>
> We currently have an OID for identifying XML records.  We are
> introducing a new OID for XML records whose schema can be identified by
> an accompanying ElementSetName.  

Look at the proposal and note that it is a proposed replacement to the 2003 agreement:  http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/agree/request-xml.html 

It was then that 1.2.840.10003.5.112  was introduced  for XML records whose schema can be identified by  an accompanying ElementSetName.  


> As I remember, ElementSetName is only used in requests.  If that is the
> case, then requests for the new OID should be responded to with
> responses with the old OID as there is no accompanying ElementSetName.
> (That's a request for even more clarification.)

This seems to me a bit frivolous, does the client really care whether the server says the record is 110 (xml) or 112 (xml)?  

The purpose of this (current) proposal is twofold: (1) to codify current practice (and in fact, practice that has been in place for several years) and (2) to put in place a policy regarding the assignment of identifiers for future schemas used by Z39.50.

With respect to the first, what is the current practice?

--Ray
Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 16:52:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 October 2009 06:12:27 GMT