Ray Denenberg writes:
 > Ok, please critique:
 > http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/metadata.html

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:
	&x-info-99-metadata=1
rather than extending existing x-info-1-accept extensions with:
	&x-info-1-accept=recordMetadata
as in the current proposal.

LeVan,Ralph writes:
 > 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.

Yes, exactly!

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:

	<extraRecordData>
	  <rec:size xmlns:rec="xmlns:rec="http://srw.o-r-g.org/schemas/rec/1.0/">
	    20000
	  </rec:size>
	</extraRecordData> 

Ralpha wants:

	<extraRecordData>
	  <rec:metadataRecord xmlns:rec="xmlns:rec="http://srw.o-r-g.org/schemas/rec/1.0/">
	    <rec:size>20000</rec:size>
	    <rec:cost>12345</rec:cost>
	    <!-- etc. -->
	  </rec:metadataRecord>
	</extraRecordData> 

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
 > record.

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:
 > 
 > x-info-1-recordMetadata[=schema]
 > 
 > 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