From: "Mike Taylor" <[log in to unmask]>
> LeVan,Ralph writes:
> > I'm tired of trying to define comprehensive schemas that cause us
> > to invent scenarios to justify sticking in anything we can think of
> > in the name of comprehensiveness. I want a quick-and-dirty
> > solution that satisfies known needs and the ability to specify
> > private schemas for private reasons.
> I very strongly disagree with this -- it will kill interoperability.
I have to go along with Ralph's sentiments here. Though we really haven't
been guilty of this behavior so much with SRU, Z39.50 history is full of
well-intentioned but misguided efforts Ralph alludes to. date/time and
searchResult are two kitchen sink examples, overspecified and consequently
either rarely implemented or highly profiled. That's not good for
> Also: wouldn't it be better to call this Record Data (as we do in the
> Record Data content set "rec") ....
No. The Record Data set never should have been so named. It should have been
called record metadata. I wish I had called us on that. Maybe it's too
late to change (though I don't see why) but let's not compound the error.
>.....since most of the world calls stuff
> like author, title and subject by the name Metadata?
Something is metadata in relation to something else. So if an SRU record has
author, title, subject, yes that's metadata, metadata about some external
item. But the metadata about that record may properly be called "record