- From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:51:38 -0400
- To: <www-zig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <041701ca04a3$5b0e61d0$18af938c@lib.loc.gov>
From: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org> > We currently have an OID for identifying XML records. We are > introducing a new OID for XML records whose schema can be identified by > an accompanying ElementSetName. Look at the proposal and note that it is a proposed replacement to the 2003 agreement: http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/agree/request-xml.html It was then that 1.2.840.10003.5.112 was introduced for XML records whose schema can be identified by an accompanying ElementSetName. > As I remember, ElementSetName is only used in requests. If that is the > case, then requests for the new OID should be responded to with > responses with the old OID as there is no accompanying ElementSetName. > (That's a request for even more clarification.) This seems to me a bit frivolous, does the client really care whether the server says the record is 110 (xml) or 112 (xml)? The purpose of this (current) proposal is twofold: (1) to codify current practice (and in fact, practice that has been in place for several years) and (2) to put in place a policy regarding the assignment of identifiers for future schemas used by Z39.50. With respect to the first, what is the current practice? --Ray
Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 16:52:22 UTC