> Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
> > How about if we register prefixes? I'll be quite happy to do it if that
> LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> > No! The Explain service will say waht prefix is expected!
> Alan wrote:
> My proposal I have tried to express is not to mandate names in CQL.
> So there is no CQL official registered list of prefixes. Instead,
> profiles can be developed independently to CQL which would typically
> which are shared by people who wish to use such profiles. In this case,
> Ray's offer to host such profiles I think would be a good idea.
My ZeeRex (Explain--) oriented two cents:
There will already be the IndexSet element. This will have some
unique pointer to the profile. So it'll be easy to find out which
profiles are supported and what their prefix is on any given server,
assuming you have access to the record describing it.
I agree with Alan though. If there is a common prefix then it would be
easiest if it were used consistently. I don't think that they need to be
reserved though, if dc.author is unlikely to overlap in such a way that
would return unexpected results, and if it does you can find out by
checking Explain for what profile (if any) it's from.
So all Dublin Core access points would be dc.something and all bib2 points
would be bib2.something. But you could also have a 'cold' access point
for your local Dark Custard indexSet.
> ps: I would almost prefer that attribute set definitions, such as
> Bib-1, STAS, etc, define the preferred short names to be used for
> those access points with the intent that they can be used in CCL
> or CQL or whatever. But I can imagine LOTS of arguing about which
And as the official form for ZeeRex when describing Z39.50! :)
I'd /definitely/ prefer this, no almost involved.
,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I