Ray,
I think we may be talking a little bit at cross purposes, so I will try
to clarify my question a bit.
I was inspired to ask about this by Rob Sanderson's reference to the
"record metadata context set",
http://srw.cheshire3.org/contextSets/rec/1.1/, in a response to a
previous post. I kind of thought Rob would have something to offer on
what appears to be the equivalent "Record Metadata Schema" (RMS),
http://srw.cheshire3.org/schemas/rec/1.0/. I am specifically interested
in using some the elements defined in the RMS schema in a standard
SRU/SRW response.
The main thing I don't understand is what the relationship is between
the RMS schema, as defined at http://srw.cheshire3.org/schemas/rec/1.0/,
and the "record" part of the standard SRU/SRW result model,
http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/sru-spec.html#resultmodel, if any.
Both have a "record" element, but the similarity seems to end there.
So, are the data elements in the RMS schema meant to be used:
(a) collectively as an alternative to the "record" part of the SRU/SRW
result model
(b) individually as extensions to be included in the "extraRecordData"
field of the standard response
(c) either of the above
(d) none of the above, i.e. something else entirely
If (a):
- what parameter should be used in an SRU/SRW request to require the use
of the RMS schema in the response?
- how should specifically the RMS schema be fitted into the SRU/SRW
result model
If (b):
- why does the RMS schema include the "record" element, that already
exists in the standard response format?
- what form would the response take with these specific extensions (e.g.
the sample I included in my previous post)?
Phew! Hope that helps.
Martin
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> Yes I see. Well there are two different things we're talking about:
>
> (1) the record metadata schema could be used as the actual record
> schema to retrieve the record.
>
> (2) you want to include record metadata elements from that namespace,
> but you want to use a different schema to retrieve the actual record.
>
> It's only in case (1) where schema validation (RMS schema) is an issue.
> And you are interested in case (2).
>
> In the example ......
>
> ---------------------------
> <record>
> < recordSchema>info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1</recordSchema>
> <recordPacking>xml</recordPacking>
> <recordData>
> < srw_dc:dc>
> <dc:title>Thisis a Sample Record</dc:title> </srw_dc:dc>
> < /recordData>
> <recordPosition>1</recordPosition>
> * <extraRecordData>
> <rel:rank
> xmlns:rel="xmlns:rob="info:srw/extension/2/relevancy">0.965</rel:rank
> < /extraRecordData> *
> < /record>
> ________________________________
>
> ... the record schema is dublin core. That's independent of the extraData.
>
> The content of the extraData element is an extension, whose URI is
> *info:srw/extension/2/relevancy*. (In this case the URI identifying the
> extension is doubling as the namespace URI for the extension. However,
> though perfectly legal, this isn't necessarily a good practice, and not
> all extensions do this. ) The "2" means that it was defined by Rob, and
> he called it "relevancy". Unfortunately it's not registered, it's just
> shown as an example, but if it were registered then the definition would
> say "put the normalized rank of this record in the element <rank>"
> ("normalized' meaning a value between 0 and 1).
>
> Note that an extension doesn't have to define a formal schema, it
> defines a namespace, some elements, and rules for how the xml is to be
> constructed (so an "informal" schema).
>
> So if you want to include a set of metadata along with a record in this
> fashion, you would define an extension is a similar manner.
>
> Is this making more sense now?
>
> --Ray
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Martin Morrey <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:12 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Record Metadata Schema (was Re: "collection" context set)
>
> Sorry, I realise I gave the wrong URL for the Record Metadata Schema,
> what I meant was http://srw.cheshire3.org/schemas/rec/1.0/.
>
> I am trying to reconcile the example given at the bottom of this page,
> with the examples in http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/extra-data.html
> and http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/sru-spec.html#resultmodel
>
> At a guess, an example using some of the extra "history" fields in the
> RMS might look like this:
>
> <record>
> <recordSchema>info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1</recordSchema>
> <recordPacking>xml</recordPacking>
> <recordData>
> <srw_dc:dc>
> <dc:title>Thisis a Sample Record</dc:title>
> </srw_dc:dc>
> </recordData>
> <recordPosition>1</recordPosition>
> <extraRecordData>
> <rec:history xmlns:rec="http://srw.o-r-g.org/schemas/rec/1.0/">
> <rec:created>2002-12-09T12:00:00</rec:created>
> <rec:lastModified>2002-12-09T12:30:00</rec:lastModified>
> </rec:history>
> </extraRecordData>
> </record>
>
> The use of "rec" as the namespace prefix is arbitary, the value of the
> namespace, "http://srw.o-r-g.org/schemas/rec/1.0/", is specified by the
> RMS document.
>
> However, I don't think the example above would validate against the
> actual XML Schema for RMS,
> http://srw.cheshire3.org/schemas/rec/1.0/rec.xsd, which requires the
> RMS
> fields are contained directly within a root "record" element, not
> "extraRecordData".
>
> Hope that makes some kind of sense!
>
> Martin
>
>
> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> > Martin -- If what you're trying to do is include record level
> metadata
> > with a response record it's a fairly straightforward process.
> Use the
> > extraRecordData parameter which you'll see described in the
> parameter
> > table in the result set model section (that you cited), more fully
> > described at http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/extra-data.html.
> >
> > --Ray
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Martin Morrey <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:54 AM
> > *Subject:* Record Metadata Schema (was Re: "collection"
> context set)
> >
> > I think we could also make use of elements from the Record
> Metadata
> > Schema,
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/sru-spec.html#resultmodel
> >
> > Do you have any advice on how to combine elements from the
> RMS with the
> > standard SRU Result model,
> > http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/sru-spec.html#resultmodel?
> >
> > At first glance, its not quite clear to me what the relationship
> > between
> > these two things is.
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > Rob Sanderson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 12:28 +0000, Martin Morrey wrote:
> > >> Rob Sanderson wrote:
> > >>>> The aim of Intrallect's "collection" context set is to
> allow
> > queries to
> > >>>> be limited to sub-collections within a repository.
> > >
> > >>> How would that differ from
> > >>> collectionName and collectionIdentifier in the record
> metadata
> > context
> > >>> set?
> > >
> > >> I think it is the same thing. Glad I asked!
> > >
> > > I think so too :)
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Martin Morrey, Product Director, Intrallect,
> http://www.intrallect.com
> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>, Tel: +44
> > 870 234 3933, Fax: +44 1506 505 117
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Morrey, Product Director, Intrallect, http://www.intrallect.com
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>, Tel: +44
> 870 234 3933, Fax: +44 1506 505 117
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Morrey, Product Director, Intrallect, http://www.intrallect.com
[log in to unmask], Tel: +44 870 234 3933, Fax: +44 1506 505 117
----------------------------------------------------------------------
