- From: Theo van Veen <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:20:48 +0200
- To: <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk>
- Cc: <Kevin.Gladwell@bl.uk>, <barbara.shuh@nlc-bnc.ca>, <www-zig@w3.org>
I was assuming there was a lot of overlap but the way you describe it, there does not have to be an interoperabilty problem. However, with CQL in mind, I still would prefer that, when DC-Lib records are indexed, the DC-Lib names can be used as access points.
Theo
>>> Robert Sanderson <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk> 22-04-02 16:38 >>>
> The interoperability problem is that: "when the DC-lib community find
> searches which cannot be created in BIB2 they have to make their own
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> attribute set, DC-Lib-1 or whatever, which allows for these extra
> searches."
How is that an interoperability problem?
There isn't two ways to do a search, there's the BIB2 way for all that
BIB2 defines and the extras are defined in DC-Lib-1.
There is no overlap, therefore there is no interop problem?
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 Monday, 22 April 2002 11:22:18 UTC