- From: Johan Zeeman <joe.zeeman@tlcdelivers.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:46:44 -0500
- To: "Ray Denenberg" <rden@loc.gov>, "zig" <www-zig@w3.org>
I seem to be the only one who cares about this. While I still think that it adds unnecessary additional complexity to the schema, and that the information that I understand the Danes wish to transfer can readily be carried with the existing schema in a manner only marginally more complex than they are proposing, I apparently haven't been able to convince the proposers. I've said my piece, and you, Ray, may resolve this impasse as you wish. Let me point out that there have been no efforts to "develop a more perfect schema", especially as part of this discussion. Although I wouldn't want to suggest that the present schema is anything like perfect, it's unfortunate that we will be ending up with a less satisfactory schema than the one we have. In the end, however, it's a pretty minor issue. j. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Denenberg" <rden@loc.gov> To: "zig" <www-zig@w3.org> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 2:01 PM Subject: holdings proposal > We need to bring the holdings-schema proposal to closure very soon. To that end, > I propose we accept it. > > Right now the Danish implementors have an urgent need for this to be resolved. > There are contracts on hold. > > If there are other implementation efforts with similar urgency, or for which > adoption of this proposal would cause a problem, please tell us. Otherwise I > ask that you accept the proposal. > > If I thought that the proposal was technically flawed I wouldn't be suggesting > this. I don't think it's necessarily the best approach, and I appreciate efforts > to develop a more perfect schema, but this has gone on for years now. > > One perspective is that the schema is fine without the amendment, but I think > that another equally valid perspective is that although the proposal isn't > pretty, it's necessary because of flaws in the existing schema. I don't think > it's productive to debate this point much longer. > > I think at the core of this issue is this: The Danish group has decided that > they do not want to recurse the bib part (they do not model childBibParts). And > I believe that this is the sort of decision that an individual country should be > able to make for itself and reflect in a national profile. > > Of course this weakens the prospect for global interoperability for holdings, > but I've heard people say that holdings is so overwhelmingly complex anyway that > the prospect of absolute, international interoperability between arbitrary > systems is unlikely, except at the summary level. > > So, if the Danish group doesn't need childBibParts, then from their perspective, > recursion of bibPart is un-necessarily complex. But they're not proposing to > undo that recursion. Their asking us to let enumeration and chronology recurse, > which is necessary if bibPart does not recurse. Their profile would specify no > recursion of bibPart and recursion for enumeration and chronology. Another > national profile might specify recursion of bibpart and no recursion for > enumeration and chronology. > > If you feel that adoption of this proposal created a hardship for you, please > speak up in the next few days. > > --Ray >
Received on Monday, 3 December 2001 14:47:34 UTC