Date:         Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:30:13 -0400
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: info:xv proposal
Comments: To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

From: "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]>
> So you are assuming a "list" somewhere that is not part of the info
> registry.

Yes, of course, sorry if that wasn't clear -- it's how we do it in SRW -
there is a sub-authority component; the info registry registered 'srw' with
LC as the registration authority for that namespace, and LC has registered a
number of organizations, allocated them supspaces, and then these
organizations register objects within their subspaces; see
http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/infoURI.html  (and Z39.50 has been
doing an analogous process, with ISO object identifiers,  for nearly 15
years).


> OK, that said, I still have trouble with some of the levels. I prefer
> that the namespace be one-to-one with a registration authority, because
> that is how the registry appears to be set up.

Well in the srw case, you wouldn't want the info registry (OCLC, NISO,
whoever) to have to respond to requests from University of Liverpool,
Oxford, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, PICA, etc, for an SRW subspace (not an info
namespace, an srw subspace), would we? How is this different?
> To do otherwise would
> require another level in the registry, and I think we're getting almost
> into structural changes here.

Don't follow.

(Which I'm not against if someone wants to
> re-think the registry structure, but it should happen explicitly). The
> "registration authority" level (your "/1/") would then go away. Only LC
> could create "xv" identifiers. If that's the case, then the upper level
> could be "info:mods" or it could be "info:lc_xv" so that others could
> also have their "xv" space.

"info:lc_xv" and "info:oclc_xv"   versus  "info:xv/lc"  and "info:xv/oclc"
(though many prefer "1" and "2" because the owners of the subspace change,
but that's a different issue)  functionally give you the same capability,
the difference is in the first case, a huge burden is placed on the info
registry who probably doesn't want it; in the second case the burden is on
an organization who has agreed to take it on.


> I also have a question about:
>
> "info:xv/1/mods/resourceType/2/cartoon
> the  '1' is still LC, but the '2' is OCLC who has registered an
> additional resource type."
>
> I'm not clear where it is the OCLC has "registered" this type.

Ok look at it instead as
"info:xv/lc/mods/resourceType/oclc/cartoon
so LC has (hypothetically) allocated a subspace to OCLC who registers
"cartoon" within the subspace.
Note that I'm not convinced we need this second level (or if you prefer
"third" level).  LC could instead maintain a flat list, in which case, OCLC
would simply submit the value to LC who would add it to the list.

Then it would be:
"info:xv/1/mods/resourceType/cartoon

--Ray