RE: MarcXchange - proposal for a new standard for MARC-records

Mr. Dahl,

 

Thank you for your comments. All proposals will be evaluated in the future process, but we will address your questions in this answer too:

 

> As far as I understand the idea basically is to have a singular 

> collection element....

It has been of great importance for us to secure that MARCXML conforms to MarcXchange, i.e. that an XML document created in accordance to MARCXML also is valid in accordance to MarcXchange. The basic structure from MARCXML is therefore copied to MarcXchange. This structure has already proved its usefulness.

 

> I may see that a collection element is nillable....

> I may see that a record element is nillable....

This is also inherited from MARCXML.

 

> Wouldn't it be better to have the format attribute of the recordType 

> complextype to be an enumeration?....

That will require that we maintain a list of all existing MARC formats and MARC-look-alikes using ISO 2709. This list does not exist.

 

> Wouldn't it be better to have the type attributoe of the recordType 

> complextype to be an enumeration?

That is actually the case in MARCXML, where the type attribute enumerates the different records types of MARC21. The same may be done in schemas for other specific MARC-formats, but it wouldn't be practical for a general schema covering all MARC-formats.

 

> Your schema allows a record element to avoid having a leader 

> subelement....

This is also inherited from MARCXML.

 

> In your pdf file "n569.pdf". There's a sample XML document which is 

> claimed to be a valid MarcXchange document. Definitely it's a well-formed 

> XML document, but there should be a namespace specification for the 

> elements in order to make it valid.

You are absolutely right.

 

> I think you should enhance your namespace to include a version number....

A good observation. 

 

Best regards

Leif Andresen and Tommy Schomacker


________________________________

Fra: Henrik Dahl [mailto:hdahl@inet.uni2.dk]
Sendt: on 27-04-2005 17:26
Til: Leif Andresen; www-zig@w3.org
Emne: SV: MarcXchange - proposal for a new standard for MARC-records


Mr. Andresen!
 
I've been looking at your schema and there are a few things which I'm wondering about. I suppose more people may find it interesting, so perhaps you may be so kind to write why you've decided so:
*) As far as I understand the idea basically is to have a singular collection element which holds a number (perhaps zero) record elements. Your schema makes it possible to have a singular record element without a surrounding collection element. In this way there are two ways to represent a singular record: With or without surrounding collection element. This make it ambigous to parse by software. I think the structure should always be the same no matter whether threre's only at most one record element or more record elements. Don't you think that a record element should not be able to exist without a surrounding collection element.
 
*) I may see that a collection element is nillable. I suppose that an empty collection would just contain no record sub-elements so what's the point of having the collection element to be nillale?
 
*) I may see that a record element is nillable. I suppose that if you do not have anything to specify for a given record you would simply not include the record element so what's the point of having the record element to be nillable?
 
*) Wouldn't it be better to have the format attribute of the recordType complextype to be an enumeration? In this way the schema could define what could be found in concrete XML documents, which would make it much easier to exchange MarcXchange documents between institutions. I suppose the set of formats is well defined. 
 
*) Wouldn't it be better to have the type attributoe of the recordType complextype to be an enumeration? In this way the schema could define what could be found in concrete XML documents, which would make it much easier to exchange MarcXchange documents between institutions. I suppose the set of types is well defined.
 
*) Your schema allows a record element to avoid having a leader subelement. Shouldn't a record element have exactly one leader element?
 
*) In your pdf file "n569.pdf". There's a sample XML document which is claimed to be a valid MarcXchange document. Definitely it's a well-formed XML document, but there should be a namespace specification for the elements in order to make it valid.
 
*) I think you should enhance your namespace to include a version number, e.g. to change it from "http://www.bs.dk/standards/MarcXchange" to "http://www.bs.dk/standards/MarcXchange/1.0". In this way it would be possible to increase the version number as new versions may arise.
 
 
Best regards,
 
Henrik Dahl
Dantek

	-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
	Fra: www-zig-request@w3.org [mailto:www-zig-request@w3.org]På vegne af Leif Andresen
	Sendt: 27. april 2005 15:39
	Til: www-zig@w3.org
	Emne: MarcXchange - proposal for a new standard for MARC-records
	
	

	To ZIG-list 

	In these months the ISO committee for Technical Interoperability - Information and Documentation votes on a proposal for a New Work Item about a XML schema to wrap MARC-records. For many years ISO2709 has worked well, but today it is necessary to use XML in many cases. 

	That's the reason for the proposal for MarcXchange. 

	More information: http://www.bs.dk/marcxchange/ <http://www.bs.dk/marcxchange/>  


	Best regards, 

	Leif Andresen 
	Chair of Danish Standard S24 Information and Documentation 

	********************************************************* 
	Leif Andresen    *   Email: lea@bs.dk 
	Library Advisory Officer 
	Danish National Library Authority 
	Nyhavn 31 E, DK-1051 Copenhagen K 
	Phone direct: +45 3373 3354 
	Phone: +45 3373 3373 *  Telefax: +45 3373 3372 
	*********************************************************