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.
Schipolweg 99, 2300 AW Leiden, The Netherlands
+ 31 71 524 65 00
+ 31 71 522 31 19 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: metadata formats for ZNG
I hope there is a good reason to release yet another bibliographic
metadata format onto the world.
The reason I suggested ONIX was because it seemed to have a growing
number of publishers and book retailers behind it (and some movement
from the library sector too). Hence, people like Amazon would be more
interested in something supporting ONIX than say MARC.
Sorry, if that sounds a little negative - I haven't seen this new format
yet (obviously) but just a little worried that we can't get agreement on
the ones we have already without re-inventing new ones.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 24 September 2001 22:42
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: metadata formats for ZNG
> We haven't said much (or anything, far as I recall), since the June
> about metadata formats for ZNG. At the meeting we spoke of DC and
> This is a heads-up: I'm planning to propose a new format, either in
> addition to
> these two, or preferably, to replace ONIX. Its an XML-based format
> bibliographic elements that we've been working on here in our office.
> unleashed it yet, but will this week. More later.
> Ray Denenberg
> Library of Congress
> [log in to unmask]