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 2003

ZNG May 2003

Subject:

Re: Metaresponse

From:

Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Fri, 30 May 2003 19:34:17 +0100

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (68 lines)

> possible for some sets of records not to have persistent URIs and their
> "persistent" URI would be their position in a result set, but these would
> probably not be useful web resources.

I disagree.  The Archives Hub is a useful web resource, but each record
within it has no persistant unique identifier beyond a search on the EADID
field.  Value of the content has nothing to do with the design of the
architecture, especially as content providers are only infrequently the
architecture designers as well.

(In my defence, the AH was designed before persistant URIs became a big
thing.  A redesign would include them, but hindsight is ever 20/20)

> >B) Why not just use the existing mechanism of CQL?
> ...&query=identifier%="foo1"
>
> ...&query=identifier%="foo1" could be a persistent URI, though in some
> services it might return more than one record.

Sorry, rec.id exact "foo1".  This will never return more than one record.

> Allowing any URI to identify a record allows for example the database query
> URI to be different from the full record URI to the extent that they came
> from totally separate servers, or of a different form e.g. an URN, NBN, DOI.

There's nothing preventing the rec.id from taking the form of a URI.

> > C) As record metadata, it belongs with record metadata, however we handle
> this.

> I agree, record metadata would need to contain an element that meant "this
> is the persistent URI for this record". I believe it would be better to
> fetch records on the basis of this element rather than record x in result
> set y.

Certainly :)
I don't think that anyone disagrees with this position, it's just how it's
implemented within SRW.  As I've already argued, we have the ability to
request records by a persistant unique identifier already, so I don't see
a need for additional specific parameters.

What we do need is a section for metadata about the record, which would
include this among other information.  Perhaps METS, but that would need
to be investigated as I doubt there is an element for Result set relevance
score available in it so it might need to be extended.


I should also quantify the use of the word 'local' in the description of
the rec.id index.  This is a local to the database identifier, rather than
a guaranteed globally useful identifier, though the possibility that it is
this as well is not ruled out.

For example, imagine multiple databases of XHTML files spidered from the
web.   One database might have the identifier as a simple incrementing
value, while six others might have the URI it was spidered from as the
identifier.  For those six databases, the identifier universally denotes
the record.

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