Date:         Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:12:05 -0500
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Mark Needleman - DRA <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: diagnostics
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: cc: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Ray

why not just define the z3950 diagnostics with 1 namespace - and reserve
another namespace for others that might not be in the z3950 set and use it
as Ralph suggests only if needed?

mark


On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Ray Denenberg wrote:

> "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
>
> > We'll cross the zig non-approval bridge when it catches fire.  Until then,
> > assume that they want us to succeed.
>
> It's not a matter of whether they "want us to succeed". It doesn't make sense
> to put diagnostics in bib-1 that don't make sense for Z39.50, anymore than we
> would put ILL diagnostics in bib-1 (if there were such things).
>
> What we can do is declare a range of diagnostics as private, like we've done
> in the bib-1 Use attributes but never so far for diagnostics.
>
> How large a space should we reserve?
>
> --Ray
>