LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PIG Archives


PIG Archives

PIG Archives


PIG@LISTSERV.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

PIG Home

PIG Home

PIG  February 2006

PIG February 2006

Subject:

Re: formatDesignation and formatRegistry

From:

Zhiwu Xie <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PREMIS Implementors Group Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:45:17 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (115 lines)

Sorry the schema given below was wrong. Won't pass the validation.
here's the correct one:
  <xs:complexType name="formatComplexType">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:choice>
        <xs:element minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"
          name="formatDesignation" type="formatDesignationComplexType">
        </xs:element>
        <xs:element minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"
          name="formatRegistry" type="formatRegistryComplexType">
        </xs:element>
      </xs:choice>
      <xs:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"
        name="formatRegistry" type="formatRegistryComplexType">
      </xs:element>
    </xs:sequence>
  </xs:complexType>

Thanks,

Zhiwu


On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 09:30, Zhiwu Xie wrote:
> Thanks a lot for the answer.
>
> About the ambiguity introduced by multiple registry entries, IMHO that's
> the problem of the schema users. The schema users will have to make sure
> multiple registry entries point to the same format and no ambiguity is
> introduced.
>
> So the schema will need to be modified accordingly, to something like
> this:
>
> <xs:complexType name="formatComplexType">
> <xs:choice>
> <xs:element minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"
> name="formatDesignation" type="formatDesignationComplexType">
> </xs:element>
> <xs:element minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"
> name="formatRegistry" type="formatRegistryComplexType">
> </xs:element>
> <xs:sequence>
> <xs:element minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"
> name="formatDesignation" type="formatDesignationComplexType">
> </xs:element>
> <xs:element minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"
> name="formatRegistry" type="formatRegistryComplexType">
> </xs:element>
> </xs:sequence>
> </xs:choice>
> </xs:complexType>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Zhiwu Xie
>
> Graduate Research Assistant
> Research Library
> Los Alamos National Lab
>
>
> On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 07:38, Priscilla Caplan wrote:
> > That's a good question. I went back through committee minutes and found
> > this entry: "We should add in a note that if you are using a
> > fileformatName, you don't need to also use a pointer into a registry;
> > use one or the other (or both if you'd like)." Thanks to Erin Rhodes,
> > who was the best minute-taker ever. The "both if you'd like" never made
> > it into the data dictionary, but I can't find anything in subsequent
> > minutes to indicate a change of mind.
> >
> > So apparently there was no intent by PREMIS to make these elements
> > mutually exclusive, and you can use both a format name and a pointer
> > into a registry if you desire.
> >
> > Regarding the ambiguity of multiple registries, yes, I can see this
> > would be a problem. We made the registry pointer repeatable because we
> > envisioned there could be many different registries containing different
> > types of information. For example, one registry might have format
> > specifications, while another might contain detailed environment
> > information but no specifications. You would indicate what kind of
> > information you were getting from each registry by using the "role"
> > element. BUT, there would be nothing preventing you from pointing to
> > two registries for the same information. If there were multiple
> > registries, it seems to me their content is more likely to be
> > overlapping than globally unique.
> >
> > Since we don't really have much experience with registries yet, we just
> > have to make our best guesses.
> >
> > p
> >
> > Bronwyn Lee wrote:
> > > Re Zhiwu Xie's comment: "Just to clarify, this is one or the other, not
> > > one and/or the other, meaning I can't have both. Am I right?"
> > >
> > > Would there be any reason to not allow both? If the formatRegistryKey
> > > contained the format name (and version) it would be OK not to have
> > > formatName as well, but if the formatRegistryKey was just a record
> > > number, it would be nice to 'see' the format name without having to go
> > > to the registry. If you allowed both, I suppose there could be ambiguity
> > > if the formatName didn't match what was in the registry entry - however
> > > even if you didn't allow both, ambiguity could occur, since
> > > formatRegistry is repeatable and the occurrences could potentially
> > > indicate different formats.
> > >
> > > Bronwyn Lee
> > > Australian Partnership for Sustainable Repositories
> > > (http://www.apsr.edu.au)
> > > National Library of Australia
> > > Canberra ACT 2600 Australia
> > >
> > >

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

November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
May 2022
April 2022
January 2022
December 2021
October 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
April 2021
March 2021
January 2021
December 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
April 2020
February 2020
December 2019
November 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 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
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
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
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager