Z39.50 proposal "Requesting XML Records (Revised 2009)" please comment by July 27

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Z39.50 proposal "Requesting XML Records (Revised 2009)" please comment by July 27

ray denenberg
Please comment on the proposal  "Requesting XML Records (Revised 2009)"
http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/proposals/request-xml-revised-2009.html

If there are no comments by July 27, this will be adopted as an implementor
agreement.

--Ray


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Z39.50 proposal "Requesting XML Records (Revised 2009)" please comment by July 27

Ralph LeVan
I think some clarification is called for.

We currently have an OID for identifying XML records.  We are
introducing a new OID for XML records whose schema can be identified by
an accompanying ElementSetName.  (That's the clarification.)

As I remember, ElementSetName is only used in requests.  If that is the
case, then requests for the new OID should be responded to with
responses with the old OID as there is no accompanying ElementSetName.
(That's a request for even more clarification.)

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of
> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 5:46 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Z39.50 proposal "Requesting XML Records (Revised 2009)"
please
> comment by July 27
>
> Please comment on the proposal  "Requesting XML Records (Revised
2009)"
>
http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/proposals/request-xml-revised-2009.html
>
> If there are no comments by July 27, this will be adopted as an
implementor
> agreement.
>
> --Ray
>
>




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Z39.50 proposal "Requesting XML Records (Revised 2009)" please comment by July 27

ray denenberg
In reply to this post by ray denenberg
 From: "LeVan,Ralph" <[hidden email]>
> We currently have an OID for identifying XML records.  We are
> introducing a new OID for XML records whose schema can be identified by
> an accompanying ElementSetName. 
 
Look at the proposal and note that it is a proposed replacement to the 2003 agreement:  http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/agree/request-xml.html 
 
It was then that 1.2.840.10003.5.112  was introduced  for XML records whose schema can be identified by  an accompanying ElementSetName. 
 
 
> As I remember, ElementSetName is only used in requests.  If that is the
> case, then requests for the new OID should be responded to with
> responses with the old OID as there is no accompanying ElementSetName.
> (That's a request for even more clarification.)
 
This seems to me a bit frivolous, does the client really care whether the server says the record is 110 (xml) or 112 (xml)? 
 
The purpose of this (current) proposal is twofold: (1) to codify current practice (and in fact, practice that has been in place for several years) and (2) to put in place a policy regarding the assignment of identifiers for future schemas used by Z39.50.
 
With respect to the first, what is the current practice?
 
--Ray
 
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Z39.50 proposal "Requesting XML Records (Revised 2009)" please comment by July 27

ray denenberg-2
In reply to this post by ray denenberg
The proposal "Requesting XML Records (Revised 2009)" has been approved as a
Z39.50 Implementors Agreement.
http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/proposals/resolution/request-xml-revised-2009.html

It replaces August 2003 Implementors Agreement: Requesting XML Records.

--Ray


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 5:46 PM
Subject: Z39.50 proposal "Requesting XML Records (Revised 2009)" please
comment by July 27


> Please comment on the proposal  "Requesting XML Records (Revised 2009)"
> http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/proposals/request-xml-revised-2009.html
>
> If there are no comments by July 27, this will be adopted as an
> implementor agreement.
>
> --Ray
>