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 

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.

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.

My third concern is the effect such a change would have on existing 
implementations, so we would need feedback from implementors on this.