Re: SV: Requesting XML records via Z39.50

Tommy Schomacker wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> What OID is "the original one"? I have found these OID for XML record syntaxes in the registry:
> 1.2.840.10003.5.109.10 xml (no specific version) 
>   
This one:

1.2.840.10003.5.109.10

/ Adam

> 1.2.840.10003.5.109.10.1.0 xml version 1.0     
> 1.2.840.10003.5.109.10.1.1 xml version 1.1 
> 1.2.840.10003.5.110 Z39.50 mime types  
> 1.2.840.10003.5.112 xml-b  XML record according to the schema or definition identified by the element set name. 
>
> Best regards
> Tommy
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: www-zig-request@w3.org [mailto:www-zig-request@w3.org]På vegne af
> Adam Dickmeiss
> Sendt: 26. januar 2009 21:58
> Til: www-zig@w3.org
> Cc: www-zig@w3.org
> Emne: Re: Requesting XML records via Z39.50
>
>
>
> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>     
> We're pretty much in the same wagon as Archie. AFAIK, we have never used 
> any other OID for XML than the original one. Most often the element set 
> name further specifies the requested schema. In other words, like the 
> (xml-b) implementor's agreement but using the original OID.
>
> / Adam
>   
>> 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 Tuesday, 27 January 2009 10:35:36 UTC