- From: Theo van Veen <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:37:21 +0100
- To: www-zig@w3.org
- CC: theo van Veen <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl>
On 28 Mar 2003 at 17:26, Mike Taylor wrote: > > Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:05:56 +0100 > > From: "Theo van Veen" <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl> > > > > >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. > > But unless there's a registry (or profiling), there's no guarantee > that my server agrees with your client that DCX is "Dublin Core, > Extended". It might just as well be "Deep Custard, X-rated". > Agreed. A schema saying "Qualified Dublin Core + <any /> for the rest" will do, I think. although our applications are intelligent enough to allow for agreements on a higher level. Theo
Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 16:43:46 UTC