LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


MODS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


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

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  October 2004

MODS October 2004

Subject:

Re: info:xv proposal

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:31:39 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (156 lines)

On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 06:30, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:

>
> Yes, of course, sorry if that wasn't clear -- it's how we do it in SRW -
> there is a sub-authority component; the info registry registered 'srw' with
> LC as the registration authority for that namespace, and LC has registered a
> number of organizations, allocated them supspaces, and then these
> organizations register objects within their subspaces; see
> http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/infoURI.html  (and Z39.50 has been
> doing an analogous process, with ISO object identifiers,  for nearly 15
> years).

I looked at that, but I still don't see the actual "list" of elements,
just info on the structure of the identifiers. And I'm still confused
about how "organizations register objects" -- is there a registry for
the individual objects?

> Well in the srw case, you wouldn't want the info registry (OCLC, NISO,
> whoever) to have to respond to requests from University of Liverpool,
> Oxford, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, PICA, etc, for an SRW subspace (not an info
> namespace, an srw subspace), would we? How is this different?
> > To do otherwise would
> > require another level in the registry, and I think we're getting almost
> > into structural changes here.
>
> Don't follow.

Basically, it's that I see a difference between
  info:lccn
and
  info:srw

Both make sense to me, but they are different implementations of "info:"
in my mind. In info:lccn, the namespace represents an identifier, and
there is one authority (LoC). It's very direct, very simple. The same
for info:oclcnum, info:doi, etc. And in the case of those three there is
control over who can create the numbers, but anyone can use one of those
numbers to create the URI form. Then there are info:sici and info:sid
where there is control over the rules for how to create them, but anyone
can create the actual value. The structure of the info URI is the same,
but I need to think more on whether I think there's a significant
difference. (I need a good taxonomy of types of identifiers,
essentially.)

In info:srw the namespace is a subspace, as you say, that is then
further divided by "authorities". Perhaps this is a semantic difference,
because the Namespace Authority has a specific meaning in info (from the
FAQ):

  Who is entitled to register under info?  <<

A Namespace Authority is entitled to register a recognized namespace
after suitable review.

A Namespace Authority is the body that owns and manages a public
namespace.

--
And the draft says:

   info-URI        = info-scheme ":" info-identifier [ "#" fragment ]
   info-scheme     = "info"
   info-identifier = namespace "/" identifier
   namespace       = scheme
   scheme          = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." )

Now I admit that my ability to read these "BNF" type statements is very
weak, so I could be reading this wrong. But it seems to me that the
namespace cannot contain a slash. So with a URI like:
  info:xv/1/mods/resourceType/cartoon
"xv" is the namespace, and that corresponds to a Namespace Authority,
which appears to be LoC, since LoC has registered the namespace "xv". So
what you are calling "subauthorities" are not Namespace Authorities in
the info definition of that. They are really organizations that LoC
allows to create xv values (presumably as long as they follow certain
rules). In essence, info could care less about what happens after "xv"
since LoC is the authority in control of that. How the "xv" namespace is
used is entirely up to LoC to define, much the way that NISO defines how
a SICI is created.

So I think what we are actually discussing here (and sorry that it has
taken me so long to get to this point) is not info:xv but is a proposal
for the creation of identifiers for items in authoritative lists. Much
like the SICI, there may need to be an info URI namespace for these, but
the real meat is that there needs to be a standard way to create the
identifiers.

(NOTE: Everything after "xv" constitutes the identifier portion of the
URI.

from the Draft:
a) info:ddc/22/eng//004.678
   where "ddc" is the "namespace" component for a Dewey Decimal
   Classification [DEWEY] namespace and "22/eng//004.678" is the
   "identifier" component for an identifier of an information asset
   within that namespace.
)

This means that I would still like for us to address the problem set,
which I sent out before as:

1) We have a large number of independent lists that have to be
maintained.
2) Some of these lists were developed for MODS, some are MARC lists, and
there are folks who probably want to create their own lists.
3) We want to make it easy to propagate these lists to users and to
programs.
4) We want to make it easy for humans to understand the lists and their
values, since they have to select the proper values from them when
creating records.
5) We want to make it easy for programs to validate the values in
MODS/MADS records.
6) ?? add more here

None of this, nor even the identifier that we will create, has anything
to do with the "info" URI space.  info can handle any identifier, and is
"blind" beyond the namespace level.

>
> "info:lc_xv" and "info:oclc_xv"   versus  "info:xv/lc"  and "info:xv/oclc"
> (though many prefer "1" and "2" because the owners of the subspace change,
> but that's a different issue)  functionally give you the same capability,

but there is a difference in meaning, because with "info:xv/lc", "lc" is
part of the identifier, not part of the namespace. That might not be
significant for the function you wish to serve, but there is a
difference.

> the difference is in the first case, a huge burden is placed on the info
> registry who probably doesn't want it; in the second case the burden is on
> an organization who has agreed to take it on.

So you are saying that the registry agency might prefer to have fewer
namespaces registered. I guess that will be a question for the permanent
agency when one is set up. But I think that since we don't know one way
or the other we should think about what is best for our community, and
hope that the agency will be able to handle that.

> "info:xv/lc/mods/resourceType/oclc/cartoon
> so LC has (hypothetically) allocated a subspace to OCLC who registers
> "cartoon" within the subspace.

That still doesn't tell me where the individual values are registered.
They are not registered in the info registry. Do you really mean
"registered" or do you mean that OCLC has an authoritative list that has
"cartoon" as one value in it? And if so, how does one make the
connection between the URI and actual list?

--
-------------------------------------
Karen Coyle
Digital Library Specialist
http://www.kcoyle.net
Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
--------------------------------------

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

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager