Ray Denenberg writes:
> Ok, please critique:
Sorry for the delay -- I am just back from week's holiday. I'll
comment of your proposal, then respond to others' comments. (Sorry if
some of what I am saying duplicates those earlier comments.)
> (Lot's of handwaving here though, for example, what namespace or
> schema to use for the metadata. This assumes that the rec
> namespace is used.)
Yes. I think that to be useful -- even to be properly open to
critique -- this proposal needs to be much more concrete. We need to
nail down a particular metadata schema and prescribe This Is The Way,
Walk Ye In It. That of course also entails specifying a namespace.
I would also prefer that the metadata extension be self-contained,
which means defining something like:
rather than extending existing x-info-1-accept extensions with:
as in the current proposal.
> I'd really like to see a recordMetadata element with a schema
> associated with it defined somewhere. There may be a number of
> things in the extraRecordData field (based on other parms) and I'd
> like to keep things separated as much as possible.
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
> > I'd really like to see a recordMetadata element with a schema
> > associated with it defined somewhere.
> In other words raise this from an extension to a parameter. That
> would be a proposal for version 2.0 (SRU/OASIS) I think.
It seems that you and I have understood Ralph's suggestion to mean
radically different things. Perhaps you could explain your
interpretation? Mine is that instead of:
<!-- etc. -->
And I concur.
> Assuming that for the present (versions 1.1 and 1.2) we develop
> this as an extension, do you want the ability to name a schema?
I think this would be a mistake. There is no reason to introduce the
added complexity of multiple metadata schemas. Let's just make one.
Rob Sanderson writes:
> I'd prefer if it had its own parameter rather than piggybacking on
> top of accept.
> Accept was designed to allow for /any/ extra information to be
> returned, but this is specifically requesting metadata about the
Exactly! (Ha, this is nice, I am getting to agree with both Ralph and
Rob in a single message :-)
> The only change I'd make would be to have the invocation:
> And then allow for different metadata schema identifiers to be
> sent, optionally, in the parameter.
Ah, OK -- normal service is resumed :-) I'd very much like to see a
case supporting the need for multiple alternative metadata schemas
before supporting this.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Sure it stinks, but only a little stink; not the horrendous
stench you might find in some other alleged ``science'' reports"
-- Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. in a mellow mood