TBH, I don't feel strongly enough either way to make much of an argument
against it going into the core set. So if no one else objects, cql.oid it
> > > Also, don't these two relation modifiers (really structure
> > > attributes, of course) belong in a more generic set than ZeeRex?
> > URI definitely belongs where it is, but where would OID go?
> Same place. The core set
> > But I don't think it's of broad enough applicability to go into CQL.
> > Apart from Z39.50, where are oids used nowadays?
> Who can say? Any number of ANSI/NISO standards might use OIDs for all
> sorts of reason we know nothing about. If people want to build CQL
> profiles to do with searching for those objects, it doesn't seem
> unreasonable to me that they should find the structure right there in
> the core set, along with URI which is precisely analogous.
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. University of Liverpool
I L L U M I N A T I L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/