- From: Matthew Dovey <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:26:06 -0000
- To: "Mike Taylor" <mike@indexdata.com>, <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl>
- Cc: <a.powell@UKOLN.AC.UK>, <www-zig@w3.org>
> >> Yes. I agree this is an issue. What I think you want to do is > >> request a metadata record that conforms to any > 'application profile' > >> that is based on 'simple DC'. > > I think this is a good articulation of Theo's problem, and > I'd like Theo either to confirm this, or explain why I am > wrong. If we can all agree that this is what you really want > to say, Theo, then we have a better chance of actually > solving your problem. > > (Background for those who are not on the ZNG list: we've had > much the same discussion with Theo on that list, and the > rather depressing conclusion seemed to be that Theo wanted to > ask for "records that are either in schema A or 'reasonably > close'", which of course is not something you can ask a > computer to judge. If it turns out that "based on simple DC" > is an adequate paraphrase for Theo's needs, we may have some > mileage after all.) The solution I was proposing on the ZNG list - which I still think would work, would be to specify four record syntaxes that we can ask for: Strict simple DC - i.e. must use all the DC elements and only those. Strict qualified DC Loose simple DC - i.e. can include other non-DC elements Loose qualified DC (I think the names I used were different). Hopefully the semantics of this could be such that a server could validly return a strict simple DC record when requested for all these formats, i.e. use of the others is a hint to the server that the client is prepared to except a richer record. Matthew
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 07:26:09 UTC