> > > There was also a desire for more result-set and record metadata.
> > Were any specifics given?
> Same URL listed above . . . see the "Results Set Management" (actually
> titled "Result Set and Single Record Metadata") paper. This paper is
My feeling is that if they didn't find METS etc to be good enough, then
it's going to be impossible to come up with something which is generic
rather than bibliographically oriented like MODS but still pleases them.
On the other hand, I can think of many many situations when I'd want to
include metadata about the record but not merged with it.
For example my simple metadata schema and indexset at
http://srw.o-r-g.org/schemas/rec/1.0/http://srw.o-r-g.org/indexSets/rec/1.0/
But still have the possibility to request a different schema for the
record itself.
My temptation is to propose metadata and metadataXML elements for record
which contains a METS (??) record, using the same rule as recordData and
recordXML for packing, but it's not very elegant.
Rob
--
,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I
