That's all I was asking for in my initial message on the subject.
Ralph
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of
> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 11:35 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: brief and full records
>
> There is none because we haven't done any of this yet. But I can't see
the
> problem. Clearly this would be a trivial task, to set up linkages and
> documentation, if we want to support this approach. --Ray
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 11:18 AM
> Subject: Re: brief and full records
>
>
> Because there is no linkage between the two schemas and absolutely no
> indication that one is shorter than the other.
>
> Ralph
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf
> Of
> > Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:50 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: brief and full records
> >
> > If I define a profile of MODS, name it ModsProfileA, call it a
schema,
> > assign it a URI and register it, e.g. info:srw/schema/1/modsProfileA
> --
> > why
> > is that not sufficient?
> >
> > --Ray
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > Having us assign cute names to schemas is not a technical solution
to
> > allowing clients to recognize that one schema is a shorter variant
on
> > the other.
> >
> > Ralph
|