- From: Theo van Veen <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:05:56 +0100
- To: <mike@indexdata.com>, <rden@loc.gov>
- Cc: <www-zig@w3.org>
>>>> Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com> 28-03-03 17:04 >>>
>
>> Thus if you want a schema to mean "DC unqualified, title and
>> identifier only" come up with a name for that.
>
>Hmm. Then we will need either (A) a central registry for schema-like
>XML element-set names, or (B) as with clasic Z39.50 practice, an
>understanding that all element-set names other than a tiny hardwired
>set ("B" and "F") are undefined except in the context of a profile. I
>don't think the latter is what Theo wants at all, since (as I
>understand his requirement) he wants to cross-search targets that do
>not adhere to his profile, if he even has one. (Right, Theo?)
>
Right. But to add some level of complexity: I do not mind having names for brief and full DCX for example as long as it remains clear that it is DCX. If different servers put different terms in brief DCX I don't mind for the simple reason that what people put in there will for 90% be something that I understand and the other 10% I just ignore.
I have an example at http://krait.kb.nl/coop/tel/portal/srudbs.xml. Here we deal with quite different recordSchemas (even non-dc) and have brief and full versions.
Theo
Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 12:08:11 UTC