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:

Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:03:52 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (92 lines)

On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 08:08, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:

>
>
>  >And I'm still confused
> > about how "organizations register objects" -- is there a registry for
> > the individual objects?
>
> Do you mean "objects" or "object types"?

It's whatever level is in the info URI. It seems that if the URI will go
all of the way down to the value level
  info:xv/1/mods/resourceType/cartographic
then you need to be able to get to that value. In other words, this URI
does not just identify the authoritative list, it identifies the *value*
in the authoritative list.

> Right.  (Except I would say "entirely up to the xv community to define,"  LC
> acting on behalf of that community.)

Does that mean that we're going to have another committee ;-)? In other
words, how will this xv community define itself and interact?

> We have an additional  proposal, not quite ready to post yet, that we think
> is complementary to the xv proposal.  (In fact, the xv proposal could be
> integrated into the new proposal.)  That is, we think this additional
> namespace, tentatively 'cv' for "controlled value", along with 'xv', neatly
> partition the problem space of controlled values.  We don't suggest that the
> xv proposal be approved (or submitted `for 'info' approval) until we can get
> this additional proposal out for discussion, which we hope will be soon,
> however we do feel that the xv proposal is a separate problem and can be
> discussed separately for now.

I should mention here at NISO is in the early stages of convening a
meeting on identifiers for the library and vendor community. It sounds
like this approach is one that should be considered. The first steps
will be to define the problem space, and it seems clear that
authoritative lists will be in that space.

> > So you are saying that the registry agency might prefer to have fewer
> namespaces registered.
> Yes, is that not a reasonable assumption?

Not necessarily. I think there's a trade-off between simple identifiers,
and many of them, vs. fewer but more complex identifiers. The decision
shouldn't be based on what's convenient for the registry agency but on
what works best for the users. The registry should serve us, not us it.

>
> Ok then, what's best for our community?

Well, that's not for you and I to decide, obviously. The question is:
how do you find out the answer to that? What is the mechanism for
convening the key players and working out a solution? And the hardest
part is: how do you define *our* community? Libraries? Library vendors?
MODS users?

> Both. OCLC has an authoritative list (and, presumably, rules for how objects
> are added, which may, but need not, include rules for delegation of
> subauthorities), which  to me fulfills the definition of "registered".

Well, then we have two definitions of "registered" -- one, that
something is "registered" in the info-uri registry, and one that there
is a list elsewhere (which one has to take on faith). I would prefer
that "registered" mean something definite -- that there be a registry
that I know I can go to and that I'll find the list or values that I
need. One of the advantages of standardizing our identifiers should be
that we also standardize our access to the many lists that we use in our
work. So if I see a standard identifier I should be able to go someplace
well-known to find out
  - who "owns" that name space
  - what are the valid values
So I guess to me it isn't "registered" unless we have an actual
registry.

> Each authority provides a list of subauthorites that it has assigned, and
> for each, a url.

And I'd want those urls in a standard location -- preferably in the
registry, or with a link from the registry to the standard location. In
other words, it has to be possible to go directly from the registry to
the lists, not hunt and peck around individual vendors' web sites. So
the layer of sub-authorities means that you'll need a similar layer of
pointers to the "real thing."
--
-------------------------------------
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