I'm all in favor of discarding the simpler of the
two (as I've probably made quite clear already). Your point about
interoperability is certainly valid.
I think we've amply demonstrated the need for the
more complex form. And there should
not be an interoperability problem - servers will indicate which schemas they
support via explain, and we now have a simple mechanism to indicate whether a
schema is supported for record data or metadata or both (the dual id) so these
can be exposed via explain.
So why don't we just agree to drop the simpler
form?
--Ray
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:41
PM
Subject: Revised record metadata
proposal
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.
