Print

Print


This looks fine to me Ray.  I'd like to see some discussion of the
Explain implications for implementors of the extension.

 

Thanks!

 

Ralph

 

________________________________

From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Revised record metadata proposal

 

I have revised the record metadata proposal:

http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/metadata.html

 

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.

 

- 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.

 

- 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. 

 

--Ray