Hi Ray and others,

The main reason for supporting the RDF/XML format is, that RDF is agnostic
about element sets, thus avoiding getting ZNG entangled in feuds over which
metadata element set to use.

For metadata element sets, which does have an associated XML format, it is
natural to use this format. DCMI for example recommends the RDF/XML format
for the simple Dublin Core metadata element set.

ZNG should only specify RDF/XML as "default" format for retrieval of any
metadata element set, which does not by itself have an official XML format.

Best regards,
Poul Henrik

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 25. september 2001 19:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: metadata formats for ZNG


Ok, Jan (and Matthew) , please disregard my reference to "replacing" ONIX.

We're proposing this new metadata set (called "yanks") to supplement the two
already proposed.  Yanks is for bibliographic applications. It's development
is
being initiated in our office, not specifically for ZNG. It's a marc subset,
with human-readable element names and corresponding marc tags documented as
annotation, in an XML schema. I expect to be able to provide a draft by
Thursday.

Now in response to Poul Henrik, the thrust of our proposal is  (1) the
element
set (2) the use of human-intelligible element names, and (3) the marc
mapping.
The format is not of primary importance, though a format is proposed (an XML
schema).  I think we're confusing format and element set.  ZNG  has (so far)
listed two element sets, DC and onyx.  Each comes with its own "format".  In
general, ZNG hasn't adopted a format (other than to say that we'll use XML)
we're planning to use the default format for a given set.  I don't see what
additional value RDF gives us.

With respect to the OAI marc schema, there may be good reason to add that
too,
depending on what we decide is the relationship of ZNG and OAI. However
these
are very different schemas. The OAI schema simply provides an XML-compatible
way
to transparently transfer marc data.


--Ray

Janifer Gatenby wrote:

> I support Matthew's argument.  When we see LC's new schema and know its
> purpose, I'm sure that we will want to include it. Nevertheless, including
> ONIX was our message to the outside world that ZNG is suitable for non
> library / bibliographic systems.  Therefore, at this stage, I would not
like
> ONIX to disappear.
>
> Janifer
>

--
Ray Denenberg
Library of Congress
[log in to unmask]
202-707-5795