Re: Requesting XML records via Z39.50

Archie, I don't want anyone to change their implementation behavior based on 
the existing or a revised agreement.  So this is useful feedback, thanks. 
I would like to incorporate existing implementation practice into the 
revised procedure.

I think that the 110 record syntax was first registered with the idea that 
the XML schema was known by private agreement.  (Subseqently we registered 
112 to use in the case when you want to also specify the schema.)  It sounds 
like what you are doing is consisitent with what we had in mind.  I'll write 
this into the revised agreement.

Any other feedback on this is also welcome.

--Ray

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Archie Warnock" <warnock@awcubed.com>
To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>
Cc: <www-zig@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: Requesting XML records via Z39.50


> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
>> I would like to revisit the implementor agreement on "Requesting XML
>> Records",  http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/agree/request-xml.html, as it
>> has been many years since it we've discussed it, and it does seem to
>> warrant some clarification.
>
> And note that the link in that page
> (http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/records.html) is no longer 
> valid.
>
>> Briefly,  to retrieve records according to a specific XML schema using
>> Z39.50 (if you DON'T want to use compSpec):
>> 1. XML is specified as the record syntax,  specifically 'xml-b':
>> 1.2.840.10003.5.112.
>> 2. The schema identifier is specified as the element set name.
>
> Somehow I missed the original Implementor's Agreement and Isite has been
> happily chugging along without it.  We don't use compSpec in Isite but
> the majority of uses are homogeneous enough that we haven't had to (nor
> been asked to) rely on the agreement.  The old XML OID (we've been using
> 1.2.840.10003.5.109.10) is sufficient for us - I just return the only
> XML we know about - ie, the record we ingested.  This works reasonably
> well since the schema is usually either known or agreed to a priori or
> included in the XML anyway, in which case the returned XML is
> self-documenting and it's up to the requesting client what to do with it.
>
> I have no objection to implementing the convention, provided there's no
> implied agreement to _transform_ records into the requested schema.  My
> inclination would be to return either the record, if we know and can
> provide the particular schema or to return an error if we don't (ie, it
> would be treated like an unsupported element set).
>
> -- 
>
> Archie
>
> -- Archie Warnock                         warnock@awcubed.com
> -- A/WWW Enterprises                          www.awcubed.com
> --       As a matter of fact, I _do_ speak for my employer.

Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 20:06:18 UTC