- From: Mark Needleman - DRA <mneedlem@dra.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:25:21 -0600 (CST)
- To: Johan Zeeman <joe.zeeman@tlcdelivers.com>
- cc: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>, zig <www-zig@w3.org>
Joe i dont have strong feelings about this but i tend to agree with you - if it gets changed i wont be too upset but i also dont see the need fo it mark On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Johan Zeeman wrote: > 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 15:25:32 UTC