- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:40:42 +0100 (BST)
- To: Matthew Dovey <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>
- cc: Sebastian Hammer <quinn@indexdata.dk>, <www-zig@w3.org>
> In order to model the Z39.50 abstraction in XML terms, you actually need
> two XML structures - one containing the XML nodes used during the
> search, the second using the nodes use during the present and some
> However, XPath also specifies not only the query but also the
> information returned i.e. also forms the role of the e-specs during a
Right. Or if you wanted to search a record encoded in XML but return it
in GRS1, MARC, SUTRS etc, then the second part would get really get messy
:)
> On the URI issue, however, we have a easy mechanical way of generating
> those from the OIDs namely a URI of the form urn:z3950-odi:OID (or
> similar).
I think that one advantage is that URIs are now much more predominant in
terms of unique identifiers than are OIDs. To take an Explain-- example,
currently we hide OIDs behind the names assigned to them on the MA OID
page. Because OIDs aren't human reader/author friendly. On the other
hand URIs can be and generally are.
http://explain.z3950.org/attributeSets/1.0/
vs
1.2.840.10003.3.19
I even had to go back to our website to find out what the OID was!
Rob
--
,'/:. Rob Sanderson (azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk)
,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I
Received on Sunday, 21 April 2002 09:46:51 UTC