LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  May 2002

ZNG May 2002

Subject:

Re: Betr.: Ralph's Premises

From:

Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Wed, 15 May 2002 17:16:55 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (108 lines)

> 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.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager