Date:         Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:13:47 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: context set vs index set
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]> (message from Robert Sanderson on Thu,
              11 Dec 2003 16:06:05 +0000)

> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:06:05 +0000
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Are we going to leave the URI for the dc 'index' set alone, even though
> it's got 'indexes' in it and we no longer talk about index sets?
> Currently:
>   http://www.loc.gov/zing/cql/dc-indexes/v1.0/
> I suggest:
>   http://www.loc.gov/zing/cql/contextSets/dc/v1.0/
>
> (Or context-sets if preferred. Either way, it should point at the
> documentation)

Since we're already committed to v1.1 not being backward-compatible
with 1.0, I agree with Rob that we should take this opportunity to fix
the context sets' identifier URIs.  We won't have this opportunity
again, since 1.2ff must be on-the-wire compatible with 1.1.

> I believe that Mike is working on the bath profile mapping.

Yes.  I hope you all have bated breath :-)

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Things like xmlrpc, soap and the stuff on top of them are
         designed to 'interwork through firewalls'.  A better phrase
         would be 'go through the firewall like a knife through butter
         in a way that prevents the companies involved monitoring
         the activity'" -- Alan Cox.

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