Robert Sanderson wrote:

>>I'm still not convinced that there would be that many schemas in
>>practice - for a book, for example we would need Mods, book-fulltext,
>>chapter-fulltext, section-fulltext, sentence-fulltext (and that may be
>>too long a list).
>>
>>
>
>.. page-fulltext, line-fulltext, folio-fulltext, column-fulltext,
>quire-fulltext, rubric-fulltext, paragraph-fulltext ... need I go on?
>And that's just for TEI like full text documents, let alone all the other
>base schemas.
>
>Multipy the number of schemas by the number of applications using them by
>the number of different displays the application needs that aren't simple
>DC or the complete record.  That's a Big Number.  I can't think of all the
>ways that a client might want to use my data. With XPath I don't need to.
>
>
>
>>>Here's one closer to home for you:  An XML representation of a musical
>>>score.  Return the trumpet section. Return the first 4 bars.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>have to know there is a trumpet section etc.
>>
>>
>
>As opposed to having to design a new schema, get the server developer to
>support the new schema, then getting the individual server maintainer to
>upgrade to the new version (possibly having to pay to do so).  Obviously
>coping with a diagnostic is much harder than that for client developers.
>
>I find the argument extremely weak, sorry.  Especially as you'll have to
>deal with diagnostics saying that the server doesn't support the schema
>anyway.
>
>
>
>>I'm more likely to return the Mods record for the item with a link to
>>the data, than the data intact (or at least support
>>
>>
>
>Very 1990s, don't you think?  Can't handle the data properly so ... I'll
>just give you a link to it and hope that the client can somehow deal with
>it.  Why don't we do this for all of our records?  That would make life
>much easier if the only contents of recordData was a URL to the record.
>
>The world has moved on from this model, IMO, and not being able to
>gracefully cope with large records is going to be an increasingly
>significant failing.  -Everything- is going XML, for better or worse, and
>XML isn't a compact data format.  Having to return only short metadata
>records is, again IMO, an extremely short sighted decision that will
>hinder take up worse than a single, optional, parameter that references a
>well defined, well understood and broadly implemented standard.
>
>But, I've registered my proposal, people apart from Mike think it's
>somehow too complex even though it's expainable in a single sentence, so
>I'll just have to assign namespaces for all the different schemas I need.
>
I don't think it's too complex either .. well no more than X-Path is.

-- Adam

>
>Probably in the form:
>  http://srw.o-r-g.org/schemas/dynamic/baseSchema/xPathExpression
>
>Rob
>--
>      ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
>    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
>  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
>,'---/::::::::::.    Nebmedes:  telnet: nebmedes.o-r-g.org 7777
>____/:::::::::::::.                WWW:  http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
>I L L U M I N A T I
>
>
>