Re: native encoding

> 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