LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  April 2007

ZNG April 2007

Subject:

Re: Record Metadata Schema (was Re: "collection" context set)

From:

Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:20:34 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (52 lines)

Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
 > >  > I'm tired of trying to define comprehensive schemas that cause us
 > >  > to invent scenarios to justify sticking in anything we can think of
 > >  > in the name of comprehensiveness.  I want a quick-and-dirty
 > >  > solution that satisfies known needs and the ability to specify
 > >  > private schemas for private reasons.
 > >
 > > I very strongly disagree with this -- it will kill interoperability.
 > 
 > I have to go along with Ralph's sentiments here. Though we really haven't
 > been guilty of this behavior so much with SRU, Z39.50 history is full of
 > well-intentioned but misguided efforts Ralph alludes to.  date/time and
 > searchResult are two kitchen sink examples, overspecified and consequently
 > either rarely implemented or highly profiled.  That's not good for
 > interoperability.

I don't see how the date/time definition and searchResult structure
are in any way relevant to this discussion.  If anything, their lesson
is to avoid additional complexity such as the suggested ability to
request metadata in an arbitrary schema.

 > > Also: wouldn't it be better to call this Record Data (as we do in
 > > the Record Data content set "rec") ....
 > 
 > No. The Record Data set never should have been so named. It should
 > have been called record metadata.

Yes, that's better.

 > I wish I had called us on that.  Maybe it's too late to change
 > (though I don't see why) but let's not compound the error.

I'd support changing the name of the rec set, and also agree that the
prose of extension currently being discussed should use the phrase
"record metadata" throughout

 > > .....since most of the world calls stuff like author, title and
 > > subject by the name Metadata?
 > 
 > Something is metadata in relation to something else.

Indeed.  See "One Man's Ceiling is Another Man's Floor --or-- Why your
data may not be as meta as you think it is" at:
	http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/tech/metadata.html

 _/|_	 ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <[log in to unmask]>    http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "You can't have free speech without responsibility, and anyone in
	 such a high profile position has to know the difference between
	 saying what you want and saying what you ought" -- Geoff Thompson,
	 acting FA chairman, shows his ignorance.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0704&L=ZNG&P=17225
listserv.loc.gov
CC-MAIN-2023-14
51625
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:GF2DJR3WZWHFRLZAVZ6MB7RY6GIGSO35
<urn:uuid:3d49a5db-6b80-4b3a-b7e3-be0b1b49b0e2>
2023-03-31T23:37:09Z
104.16.54.16
text/html
sha1:KBLQ6LBPGWH6JGXL7RIWBKAZCY5E6LL2
<urn:uuid:c9b22fc6-d6de-4173-9c82-c68f0bc1cdc5>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0704&L=ZNG&P=17225
response
<urn:uuid:6dec6206-c34b-4ba0-982f-8b34429b31b4>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-14
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for March/April 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-43
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/