- From: Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:19:52 GMT
- To: matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk
- CC: www-zig@w3.org
> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:24:46 -0000 > From: "Matthew Dovey" <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk> > > Sometime ago I suggested that we should consider registering an OID > for ONIX. The general response was that we already had an OID for > XML and that as ONIX was an XML document we should use that OID. The > particular schema could be specified using compSpec schema - rather > than register an OID for any XML schema We were probably all speaking as Computer Scientists. If that had been one of the ZIG meetings where we were all being Software Engineers, you'd probably have got your OID :-) (I've noticed this phenomenon most strongly when it comes to new BIB-1 diagnostics. Some days, the ZIG's in a mood where it just goes, "What the hell, let's just add these ninety-eight diagnostics", whereas another day, it will spend three hours aguing over whether "out of memory" is a legitimate new diagnostic or just one case of an existing one, and if so whether it's a Temporary or Permanent System Error. But hey, that's why we love it so, right kids? :-) > However, this seems to be going the other way - we have three > distinct concepts the record syntax/structure (MARC, XML, GRS.1), > the record schema (MARC21/UKMARC, XML Schema, TagSet) and the > character encoding - are we really going to suggest a distinct OID > for every combination? Do we have enough OID's? They're not like IP addresses -- they're not going to run out! :-) Not sure what proportion of servers and clients actually implement e-Spec, but it may that it falls into the same "nice idea, won't happen" bucket as Explain. In retrospect, we might have done better just to allocate new OIDs off the root GRS-1 OID for each schema, and use those for preferredRecordSyntax. Likewise for XML sub-OIDs for the various DTDs that people want. With all that said, I think that if MARC21 actively specifies something different from USMARC in the area of character sets, then it really is a different record syntax, and a new OID is the most pragmatic way to handle it. _/|_ _______________________________________________________________ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike@miketaylor.org.uk> www.miketaylor.org.uk )_v__/\ There's a myth that object-oriented programming promotes re-use. Nonsense. _Good_ programming promotes re-use.
Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 13:19:56 UTC