Theo van Veen writes:
> > What would be really useful would be a mechanism for specifying,
> > on a request-by-request basis, what particular additional
> > information you're interested. If only we'd thought to design
> > such a mechanism!
> Clients might crash on unsollicited extraRecordData, there are only
> a few extensions that would be a candidate and we didn't design the
> mechanism, so let's forget it.
Er. We _did_ design the mechanism. I was being ironic. You know,
like rain on your wedding day. Or a free ride when you've already paid.
> BTW, I was not proposing to put the price information in
> extraRecordData. Actually I made a remark about the use of
> extraRecordData for this purpose because the extraRecordData relies
> so much on bilateral agreements and a priori knowledge. Price
> information can be in an ONIX record or in a DC-alike recordSchema
But _all_ semantic interoperability relies on bilateral agreements!
That's the only way to know what _anything_ means. Otherwise it's all
just bits on a wire.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "We tried making movies from a volume of stills" -- Peter Gabriel,