- From: Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:14:59 GMT
- To: matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk
- CC: rden@loc.gov, www-zig@w3.org, carrol.lunau@NLC-BNC.CA, slavko@mun.ca
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:01:23 -0000 > From: "Matthew Dovey" <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk> > > > I would like to know what the disadvantages _are_ before agreeing > > to discard this approach [allocating sub-OIDs of the XML > > record-syntax OID]! At first sight, it seems admirable. > > From my recollection of the comspec approach - it was partly that we > weren't really defining different record syntaxes (its always XML) > so recordSyntax wasn't the right field. The fact we'd made that > mistake with MARC was not seen as a good reason for repeating the > error. OK, I can buy that. > Also how to handle private XML schema - using this OID prefix or a > private one. Does that mean you have to become a registered Z39.50 > implementor (and get a private OID prefix) just to use a private XML > schema. Ah yes, this rings a bell. > Also, if we already have a persisent URI for a schema - why create > yet another one! True. OK, I accept that this approach is flawed. > > The element-set name really doesn't seem like the right place > > for this at all, but I admit to not having any real > > recollection of that discussion, so I may well be forgetting > > some compelling point. > > I agree, but I thought comspec fitted the bill (I think I was one of the > proposers of that). But there is v2 to still support apparently... Then we really need to figure out why we passed amendment 5 (http://lcweb.loc.gov/z3950/agency/amend/am5.html) -- Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com> Software Engineer, Index Data UK.
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 17:15:55 UTC