Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
 > From: "Tor Arne Dahl" <[log in to unmask]>
 > > 1) What is the status of the Bath context set at <URL:
 > > http://zing.z3950.org/srw/bath/2.0/ >? This is not among the registered
 > > context sets at the SRU website.
 > 
 > The Bath profile was depricated. This was a decision from the March 2006
 > meeting, see:
 > http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/march06-meeting/report.html.
 > The useful parts of the Bath profile are absorbed in the bibliographic
 > context set (see below).

Hmm, maybe that was premature.  Maybe we should have waited until its
replacement was ready.

In fact, the wording of the meeting report is a bit vague:

	The bibliographic set will incorporate all that's
	useful from the Bath context set (and Bath will be
	deprecated).

When is "will"?  The notes indicate an intention to deprecate the Bath
set (presumably at the time that the bibliographic set has
incorporated all that's useful from it) but doesn't say that we
actually _did_ deprecate it.

 _/|_	 ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <[log in to unmask]>    http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Politicians, ad agencies, and other liars are prone to using
	 high-sounding, low-content, prose to back their points.  Heck,
	 if people really understood what they were saying, they might
	 be in big trouble" -- Rheal Nadeau.