Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:48:33 -0500
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: recordSchema
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> records/record/recordSchema isn't an optional field,
Oh. perhaps it should be.


> agreement not to provide null mandatory fields.  So -something- has to be
> there, if only a pointer to the extraResponseData field with the real
> information.
>
> > for this purpose.  I'd like us to avoid allowing normative semantics to
be
> > modifiable by extraDataRequest.
>
> I disagree on the grounds that it just doesn't concern us.  ExtraData
> elements are the 5000+ private attributes which can mean anything in the
> privacy of your own profile.  If someone wants to return their favourite
> chocolate cookie recipe in the recordSchema field when they recieve a
> <rcp:chocolateCookie/> extra data field, then that doesn't bother me in
> the slightest, as I will never see it happen.

Is there anyone here concerned that we're recreating Z39.50?