 |
 |
From: "Mike Taylor" <[log in to unmask]> >let's throw away > the SRU-specific schema identifiers and use the OpenURL ones in SRU. I have three concerns, and if they could be satisfied I could go along with this. (1) How do we go about getting a format registered? If it is not a lightweight process, it isn't going to work for us. For SRU it is a lightweight process: Someone wants to register a schema. We have a brief (public) discussion about whether it should go on the well-known or a private list. If it belongs on the well-known list it is registered immediately (I maintain that list). If it does not, then I assign the proposer an authority string and he/she registers it under that string. If the proposer already has a string it can be registered immediately without my intervention, unless the proposer wishes it to be listed in the register (even though it's not on the well-known list), in which case it is listed immediately upon request. Unless there is some similar lightweight process that can be offered to register schemas within the OpenURL register (or the existing process can be so adapted), this won't work. (2) And along those lines, my second concern is that the OpenURL register does not offer the delegation of authority that the SRU process does (i.e. the "authority string"). I am certainly willing to continue to serve as registrar for SRU schemas, even if they are registered under the OpenURL registry, if the process can be adapted to provide such a mechanism. So we need some feedback on these concerns from those of you more familiar than I am with the OpenURL process. (3) My third concern is the effect such a change would have on existing implementations, so we would need feedback from implementors on this. --Ray