> Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 11:04:31 -0400
> From: "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > My proposal is the following:
> >
> > 1) Allow local and global namespace prefixes.
> > 2) Let the server decide what to do with unprefixed index names.
> > 3) Let's try to define a list of unprefixed index names
> > (instead of dc.xxxx) just to standardize the names (ambiguity
> > is the clients risc).
> > 4) Make sure Explain specifies the servers behaviour unambiguously
>
> 1, 2 and 4 are great!
>
> I'm not at all happy with #3. That's just Bib-1 all over again.
> The ZIG has no business defining access points for other
> communities.
I think Theo's point is that we're talking about access points that
don't belong to any community -- or, if you prefer, the "no community"
community. I agree with him that we should provide a lax way for
talking about things things (and add that there can be no strict way,
for fundamental reasons.)
> Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:24:14 +0200
> From: Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Ok, we are almost there.
>
> For #3:
> For unprefixed names let's use as much as possible the element and
> qualifier names from the available DCMI application profiles without
> the namespace prefix (ambiguity is the clients risc).
I think this is a neat compromise. To state it more clearly (if I
may): when a server receives a search against an unqualified index
_for which is has no semantics of its own_, it is gently encouraged to
treat it as semantically similar to the same-named Dublic Core
element.
(Insert additional obfuscatory prose according to taste.)
Next please!
> Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 16:01:42 +0100
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Here's my list of names.
>
> <#include "bib1.h"> (many hundred)
> <#include "collectable_card_games.h"> (many thousands)
> <#include "email.h"> (~100)
> <#include "zthes.h"> ?
> <#include "network.h"> (~10)
> <#include "tei.h"> (many many thousands)
> <#include "archives.h"> (see tei)
> <#include "CIMI.h"> (see tei)
> <#include "artworld.h"> (see tei)
> <#include "OMRAS.h"> (see tei)
> <#include "lego.h"> (see tei)
> <#include "userregistry.h"> (~100)
Way, way too many. We couldn't possibly require -- or even encourage
-- servers to standardise semantics of that many access points. I was
think more in terms of, ooh, let's say, about fifteen.
OK, nearly done ...
> Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 16:31:41 +0100
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> What's the Dublin Core for collectable card rarity?
There isn't one.
> Or the name of the card set that it's from?
There isn't one.
> How about the DC for username? port number? Music tempo? How do
> you specify the name of the journal that an article is to be found
> in?
(I'm going to leave you to figure out the answers to these :-)
> Why is DC to be treated as superior to any other indexset?
Because it's there. What we're talking about here is a set of
semi-standardised interpretations for access points which can be used
in cross-domain-like searches. Seems daft to make some up when we
already have a perfectly sensible set lying around.
> If I have a default indexset in a collectable card database, then
> searching for unprefixed 'set' should not have to be interpreted as
> searching for a mathematical set or anything else.
No indeed -- servers would say: "Sorry, mate, got no idea what you're
talking about."
> I still disagree fundamentally. BIB1 proves that This Does Not
> Work.
It proves that BIB1 doesn't work. That's all.
_/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Whole AND segments" -- Monty Python.
|