LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


ZNG@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  August 2005

ZNG August 2005

Subject:

Re: Multiple Schemas per Request summary

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:10:37 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (67 lines)

We are starting to use MGEG21/DIDL for compound objects. We may derive
from the metadata (obtained from the index is DC) whether the object is
a compound object and then retrieve it out of the scope of the search
and retieve application. An alternative to this is an extraRecordData
extension indicating which formats are available for a specific record
because different metadat formats are mixed in our index. Anyway the
client has a limited choice for metadata formats that differs per object
and can this cannot be expressed in explain.
I will solve this in my own way but I mention it as an actual use case
which might help in discussing generic solutions for real use cases.

PS. We seem to have problems with SMPT, so you might receive two
messages that were sent from my home 40 hours agoo.

Theo



>>> [log in to unmask] 12-08-2005 13:01 >>>
In terms of OAI, Herbert and co at Los Alamos have done interesting
work
in returning MPEG21/DIDL documents as the "metadata" record, so the
same
can be argued the other way as well.

Rob


On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Matthew J. Dovey wrote:

>> If the intention is to include properties describing the
>> metadata record
>> (REC), then perhaps it might be better for SRW/SRU to adopt
>> the approach
>> taken by OAI PMH and place this information in a record "header"
>> separate from the metadata.
>
>This doesn't necessarily work in all cases - I think I did give the
>learning object repository example where we potentially might return
a
>learning object, learning object metadata and learning object
metadata
>metadata (e.g. a REC record for the metadata). At present we *are*
just
>using different transactions (requesting different recordSchema)
>depending on which we want back, and don't (yet) have a real
requirement
>to get all back in a single response.
>
>> This would be a useful place to park other types of data we haven't
>> considered yet, for example Rights Data applying to the
>> metadata record.
>
>The issue is we could add such a header - but in many ways we are
>duplicating what other (and possible better) schemas such as METS,
>MPEG21 etc. already do.
>
>Also adding the header does not necessarily address the other
>requirement - which is someone who *is* using a container schema such
as
>METS may wish to be able to request what schemas are contained within
>that container (admittedly it isn't yet clear whether this is a real
>requirement now or just anticipation of a future one).
>
>Matthew
>

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

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 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
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager