I think I agree with Mike here.
The point of the schema specification in the request is for me to map the
elements of the requested record into the schema. If the schema has an
element <SizeOfRecord> and the record doesn't have such an element, then I
won't produce that element in my output. The end result will be an empty
What we wanted was for the metadata elements for the record to be mapped
into the schema, not the elements of the record. The use of a distinguished
schema name to accomplish that distinction is bothersome. (I'm not saying
absolutely unconscionable. I'll leave that to Mike. :-)
I think we want a more explicit way to say that we're requesting record
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Taylor [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 10:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Metaresponse
> > Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:40:14 -0400
> > From: Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
> > > For example, I might have a database of METS records. If I say
> > > that I want the simple 'rec' schema, do I want the METS record in
> > > rec, or do I want the metadata about the METS record?
> > The metadata about the METS record. Cleary. I don't see how that can
> > be in question.
> The very fact that we're discussing this shows that there is a
> question! And for what it's worth, I'd have guessed (no strong
> opinion) that the natural interpretation is the opposite to what you
> Sorry if I'm being dense. But if that's what we agree we want this to
> mean, we definitely need to nail it down in the specs.
> /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
> )_v__/\ Remember that "ministry" means "service": if what you do in
> the church doesn't serve the church, it's not a ministry.
> Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at