- From: Andy Powell <a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:46:54 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Matthew Dovey <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>
- cc: www-zig@w3.org
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Matthew Dovey wrote: > > >> 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. And presumably each of these would have an appropriately strict or loose XML schema associated with it - so, applications would still phrase their requests by providing the URL of the XML schema associated with each of the 4 'labels' above? This sounds reasonable to me... but there is one thing that might be worth thinking about... Is an application profile that uses 1 DC element and 50 IEEE LOM elements a 'loose simple DC' application or a 'loose IEEE LOM' application or both or either? ;-) The point being that the naming above (and Theo's DCX name) takes a very DC-centric view of the world. Does this matter? Andy -- Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933 Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 07:46:57 UTC