Date:         Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:58:34 GMT
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Betr.: more question on dcx and record schema
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]> (message from Theo van Veen on Sat, 13
              Dec 2003 01:53:34 +0100)

> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:53:34 +0100
> From: Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Two:
> I was assuming that a schema did not have to be an XML schema. I
> will make on if needed.

Well, "XML schema" is an ambiguous phrase, since it has both a generic
meaning (some kind of specification of the structure of XML records)
and a specific meaning (the XML Schema definition at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema).  We all agree that the thing whose
identifier URI is passed in must be a schema _sensu lato_, but I don't
know if it's clear that it needs to be a Schema (capital "S") _sensu
stricto_.  Although I'm guessing that toolkits-as-impediments may make
this a practical requirement for many implementations.

> Three:
> I have to sort this out. We will start using schemas only when records
> are being created. When they exist we don't care anymore about a xml
> schema and use XSL to process the record. I can try to create a schema
> for the sake of meeting the requirement of having a schema.

Don't forget you can easily write an "anything goes" schema.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "This machine is a piece of GAGH! I need dual 600MHz Pentium
         processors if I am to do battle with this code!" -- Klingon
         Programming Mantra

--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/