Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress 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
I don't see how the date/time definition and searchResult structure
are in any way relevant to this discussion. If anything, their lesson
is to avoid additional complexity such as the suggested ability to
request metadata in an arbitrary schema.
> > 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.
Yes, that's better.
> 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.
I'd support changing the name of the rec set, and also agree that the
prose of extension currently being discussed should use the phrase
"record metadata" throughout
> > .....since most of the world calls stuff like author, title and
> > subject by the name Metadata?
> Something is metadata in relation to something else.
Indeed. See "One Man's Ceiling is Another Man's Floor --or-- Why your
data may not be as meta as you think it is" at:
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "You can't have free speech without responsibility, and anyone in
such a high profile position has to know the difference between
saying what you want and saying what you ought" -- Geoff Thompson,
acting FA chairman, shows his ignorance.