Date:         Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:54:10 +0000
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: namespaces (Re: Betr.: Re: draft announcement)
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

> > > They're both identifiers and both identify the same thing in this
> > > case.  So it makes sense that we assign one identifier, not two.

Note: _in this case_

> As I understand Rob's suggestion, it is that the <recordSchema>
> element of the SRW searchRetrieveResponse, which contains the schema
> of the returned record, should _always_ specify the same URI as that
> of the namespace from which the actual record's top-level element is
> taken.  That works for DC records, but does not generalise.

No, it was just for DC.  Otherwise we are defining, for ourselves, two
unique info uris that both say 'this is the dc schema that we have
defined as opposed to anyone else's dc schema'.

Rob

--
      ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Nebmedes:  http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I