LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


ZNG@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  May 2007

ZNG May 2007

Subject:

Revised record metadata proposal

From:

Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Thu, 17 May 2007 23:41:22 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (50 lines)

Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
 > I have revised the record metadata proposal:
 > http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/metadata.html

Thanks.

 > Notes:
 > 
 > - This references a new record metadata schema, called "rmd".  We
 > decided during this discussion that "rec" was a misleading name, so
 > I renamed it.  It can be based on rec or rewritten. We'll discuss
 > this among the Ed. Board.

OK.

 > - This page describes both how to retrieve record metadata the
 > "conventional" way, and by extension, as we discussed.  The
 > "conventional" discussion is included for completeness.

Good.  This section is nice and clear.

 > - Two extensions are defined. One is the simple extension with no
 > parameter value that assumes the default schema (rmd) and the
 > second allows a schema name to be supplied.  This is a compromise,
 > as it is clear that there are two postions on this and that the
 > advocates on both sides are pretty well dug in. In any case there
 > is a justification supplied for two extension ("Reason for two
 > extentions") which I think makes a compelling argument.

Hmm, now, what would be a nice, polite way to respond to this?  Oh,
yes, I know, got it: SOMEONE MAKE THE MADNESS STOP!

:-)

My objection to the more complex version of the extension, in which
any schema may be requested, was that it would reduce interoperability
by creating situations in which both client and server would conform
to the specification but still be unable to cooperate.  Introducing a
whole alternative extension makes this problem far worse still: a
client might implement one version and but its server the other.

If there is general agreement that we need the more complex form of
the extension, than can we please have that and only that version, and
discard the simpler version completely?

 _/|_	 ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <[log in to unmask]>    http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings"
	 -- Monty Python's Flying Circus.

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

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 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
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
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager