- From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:36:37 -0500
- To: zig <www-zig@w3.org>
I have a few comments and observations related to the discussion of the Norzig bib-1 proposal. First.... Mike Taylor wrote: > I have reservations about plenty of these -- > quite apart from sharing > Barbara's distaste for _any_ new BIB-1 > attributes -- but I wonder > whether it's even worth discussing. We all know > BIB-1 is a garbage > can, and it's hard to see that it makes much > difference exactly how > much garbage is contains. So my first instinct > was just to shug and > say, what the hey, if NORZIG wants 'em, let it > have 'em. The simple fact is that Mike's "garbage can" theory is valid. We, the ZIG, explicitly took this position a number of years ago. We all understand the reasons why we need to perpetuate bib-1 and why, even, we need to add new Use attributes to it -- we don't add these with interoperability in mind, nor with adherence to any architectural or even scope principals. If we want a carefully crafted and thoughtfully scoped attribute set it should be developed under the attribute architecture. If we are to decide that the attribute architecture effort is a failure (which would be a shame), and go back to carefully crafting bib-1 (which at this stage would be very difficult if not impossible) then that's a decision that the Z39.50 implementor community at large would need to make and would probably require that we convene a ZIG meeting. Therefore.... "LeVan,Ralph" wrote: > I have no problem with the proposed Use > attributes. But, I don't like the > content rules associated with many of them. > They call for the fields/access > points to be specific codes. I believe that > such rules should be imposed > through local profiles. An example is the > Nationality Use attribute. If it > may only have two letter codes, then I'll need > an Uncoded-Nationality Use > attribute. Or, we'll all just ignore the > semantics, just like we do today > with Code--Language (Use attribute 54) which is > the only Use attribute > available to me to pass language queries. I'd > prefer not to continue that > practice. Given my comments above it should come as no surprise that I don't agree with Ralph on this. I don't see the proposed attributes as serving applications other than those for which they have been developed. However.... "Larry E. Dixson" wrote: > One of the requested new Use attributes > (Subject--genre/form) is, in my > opinion, already present. I believe that Use > attribute "1075" is the > genre/form subject search. Confusion is being > caused by the name of > this attribute in the current Bib-1 attribute > list. Attributes 1073-1079 > were given the following names: > > 1073 Subject-name-conference > 1074 Subject-name-corporate > 1075 Subject-name-form > 1076 Subject-name-geographical > 1077 Subject-name-chronological > 1078 Subject-name-title > 1079 subject-name-topical > > I think that the word "name" should be removed > from 1075, 1077, 1078, and > 1079, and that 1075 should be renamed > "Subject-form/genre" (or > "Subject-genre/form"). With this change, I > think that NORZIG should use > 1075. I do agree with the principle that if there is a perfectly appropriate attribute already in bib-1 that serves the purpose for which another is proposed, then the new attribute should not be added, and the existing attribute be used instead. However in this case, I don't think we can simply rename these, without the concurrence of the body who originally proposed/added them. That would be the German Library. Anyone out there from the German Library who cares to comment on Larry's suggestion? And one more thing..... Sebastian Hammer wrote: > In DanZIG, we're also not using the attribute > set architecture > specifically. However, we did choose to create a > new attribute set (Dan-1) > for attributes of specific national relevance, > rather than moving > everything into Bib-1. This was based on the > observation that pretty much > all targets on the Danish market were capable of > supporting multiple > attribute sets when pushed. This is a point worth elaborating. When Sebastian says "capable of supporting multiple attribute sets" he means within a single search (I assume, since dan-1 numbering begins with 1, which means it doesn't "inherit" bib-1). With respect to how many attribute sets a server can handle there are three degrees of flexibility: (1) Some servers ignore the attribute set oid and just assume bib-1. (2) Some recognize the oid but cannot handle more than one in a search (because they are version 2). An example is GILS. (3) And some can handle multiple sets within a query. I understand the severe limitations of the first two types, and why it is so hard to consider implementing the new generation of attribute sets. I'm not so sure I understand the limitations for the third type. --Ray
Received on Monday, 24 March 2003 10:36:39 UTC