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  December 2002

ZNG December 2002

Subject:

Betr.: Re: recordSchema and namespaces

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:12:05 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (61 lines)

This is not exactly what I meant. EAD, MODS, MARCXML and DC are different and I do not want to mix them. Also putting ead within the dc:description is not something I proposed.

What we will do is use a stylesheet for the presentation of a number of elements that can be simple DC, qualified DC and some elements from our apllication profile. We will neglect elements that are not in the application profile, but still display the ones that we do recognize. We will allow our data providers  to add elements for local use without declaring the response invalid. We will not use a schema but use the application profile to agree on the metadata elements that we expect in the record. We will consider dc:title as title, regardless of what scheme is being used. 

We will use different SRU-base-urls for SRU-compatible and local versions of our server and clients, but I wanted to share our approach with respect to the DC and recordSchema with the other subscribers of this list as I found this approach promising and powerfull. 

Theo


>>> [log in to unmask] 09-12-02 12:27 >>>
> So my proposal is to use recordsSchema DC as a global name for all
> DC-based application profiles. The servers are allowed to add elements
> additional to simple DC and the clients just ignore the terms that they
> don't understand. When additional namespaces are involved the server
> includes the namespace declarations in the response at the level of the
> SearchRetrieveResponse tag (rather not for every individual tag).

Then we'll get things like:

<dc:description>
  <ead:ead>
    <ead:eadheader>
      <ead:eadid>  </ead:eadid>
      ...
  </ead:ead>
<dc:description>

rather than real DC.

> The use of a "real" recordScheme makes sense for those clients that are
> going to validate the responses. Are clients going to validate the

It makes more sense than this.  If I have display stylesheets for MarcXML,
EAD, DC and my own local schemas, then I need to know which one it is.
Even if it's DC + metadata I still need to know that I should use the DC +
metadata stylesheet.

> RDF- schema, application profile) but we should use global names in the
> recordSchema parameter to allow for different schemas without becoming
> ininteroperable.

As soon as you have one amorphous pool of record schemas lumped under one
heading with no way to distinguish them, it becomes uninteroperable as you
have no way of knowing how to process it.

> What is the opinion on this?

Not feasable.  At least the 15 DC, but unlimited number of other elements.
And you could include zero DC elements.

Rob


--
      ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/ 
  ,'--/::(@)::.      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

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