Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
One question we haven't asked is if we really need a MIME type for MARCXML. :) On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 23:28, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: PPS: Yes, it has been asked, and it's pretty obvious to me that we do. I wasn't asking for technical reasons; I was more having a stab at how many people use and need MARCXML specifically as compared to a number of other more used formats. I mean, seriously, you can use MARCXML embedded in Atom and get the best of both worlds instead. Don't worry about it; it's not a serious _enough_ question. :) Alex -- --- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps -- http://shelter.nu/blog/
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Alexander Johannesen alexander.johanne...@gmail.com wrote: I wasn't asking for technical reasons; I was more having a stab at how many people use and need MARCXML specifically as compared to a number of other more used formats. I mean, seriously, you can use MARCXML embedded in Atom and get the best of both worlds instead. You could, and we do (http://jangle.org/) and it would be immensely helpful to put it in: content type=application/marcxml+xmlrecord.../record/content rather than: content type=application/xmlrecord.../record/content to know that's what's being transported (without having to know Jangle's extensions). -Ross.
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 5:48 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.? A few points: 1. x- is commonly used in cases when an application for a mime type is pending, and when there is a reasonable expectation that it will be approved. The mime type is prefixed with x- until the requested mime type becomes official, after which the x- is dropped. 2. We will be registering MODS and MARCXML: - application/mods+xml - application/marcxml+xml Please don't forget to also register application/mads+xml too, for those of us who are using MADS. Andy.
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
Sorry for the confusion over SRU, and I'm afraid this takes up way off-topic, but since you asked . I meant the SRU *response format*. And even that doesn't make sense, not in the context of the current SRU spec. But in the next version, 2.0, which we are now developing within OASIS, the response can take on different formats, subject (possibly) to content negotiation. For example the response can be packaged in ATOM, or RSS, or the default SRU schema, and it is the later that we are registering. --Ray - Original Message - From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.? Thanks Ray. marcxml+xml makes sense to me, the name is really arbitrary, so long as we have _something_ that represents MARC-XML. Glad you are working on this. I'm confused about your suggestion of registering a content type for SRU. My understanding is that SRU is a _protocol_, not a media type? Unless you mean registering a type for the SRU explain document? In general, with my understanding of SRU and of the purpose of internet content types, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to register a content type for SRU the protocol. Media types must function as an actual media format: Registration of things that are better thought of as a transfer encoding, as a character set, or as a collection of separate entities of another type, is not allowed. Is SRU a media/document type, or is it a communications protocol using a collection of separate document types? Jonathan Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: A few points: 1. x- is commonly used in cases when an application for a mime type is pending, and when there is a reasonable expectation that it will be approved. The mime type is prefixed with x- until the requested mime type becomes official, after which the x- is dropped. 2. We will be registering MODS and MARCXML: - application/mods+xml - application/marcxml+xml 3. The reason one uses (or doesn't use) +xml is made very clear in one of the relevant RFCs (I don't have the number at the moment): the application consuming the content is supposed to recognize the mime type and process it accordingly, however, in the event that it does not recognize the mime type, the +xml signals at least that the content is xml, and so there is a possibility that it might do something useful with it, even though it cannot proccess it according to mime type - it may be able to parse the XML and present something readable to the user. Even better, consider the case where it is a protocol response, for example SRU, where we are registering application/sru+xml, there might be an accompanying stylesheet url, and the client can then format a complete sru response without knowing that it did so. The reason is NOT, as some have suggested, to distinguish mods+xml from mods+xyz where xyz is some alternative syntax. However, because of the confusion, we would register marcxml as marcxml+xml (even though it sounds funny) rather than marc+xml, because of all the confusion that the latter name would cause. --Ray - Original Message - From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.? Actually, re-reading some of the RFCs, I would clarify one thing. It seems like using unregistered x- MIME type is discouraged, and instead you are encouraged to use what is (claimed to be) a very quick and easy and painless process of registering vnd. types. So I'd encourage LC to investigate doing that for MARC, while waiting for someone to have time to do an actual (more time consuming) application/marc+xml registration. That would give us the beneift of an actual registration (albeit under vnc.) instead of an unregistered x-. As far as text/xml, the general consensus on the internet seems to be that it was a mistake, but it's there and no one cares enough to try to somehow remove it, so it _is_ legal, but nobody really encourages using it. One problem with text/html is that it's default char encoding is ascii, while the default char encoding for XML is of course UTF-8. This can very easily lead to confusion and encoding errors unless software is more careful than we know most software has a tendency to be. :) Still, it's legal, but I don't see any reason to encourage it's use for MARC. application/xml, sure, but it would be _really_ useful, for the reasons discussed in last week's thread, to have a specific type for marc xml (and mods). If the folks at LC don't understand why, thinking that application/xml is sufficient, i could try to write up a persuasive essay again, or copy and paste from last week's thread. Or is there someone else other than LC who could conceivably fill out an application for application/marc+xml and application
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
MARC was registered a long time ago. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2220.html Some of the text is a bit dated and could stand some updating. Patrick is right that an XML schema such as MODS or MARCXML would be text/xml. Rebecca Rebecca S. Guenther Senior Networking and Standards Specialist Network Development and MARC Standards Office Library of Congress 101 Independence Ave. SE Washington, DC 20540 Washington, DC 20540-4402 (202) 707-5092 (voice)(202) 707-0115 (FAX) r...@loc.gov Patrick Yott patrick_y...@brown.edu 02/04/09 10:59 AM Not sure about the binary MARC, but all flavors of xml should be typed to either text/xml or application/xml, yes? patrick On 2/4/09 10:47 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I am actually rather shocked that it seems that MARC-XML, MODS, MARC21-binary, do not have registered Internet Content Types (aka MIME types). Am I missing something, or is this really so? Anyone know what the process is for registering such? Anyone want to help try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards organizations for each of those types, rather than doing it independently? Jonathan
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 21:43, Rebecca S Guenther r...@loc.gov wrote: Patrick is right that an XML schema such as MODS or MARCXML would be text/xml. I would strongly advise against text/xml, as it is an oxymoron (text is not XML XML is not text even if it is delivered through a text protocol), and more and more are switching away from the generic text protocol (which makes little sense in structured data). Hence, a more correct MIME type for XMLMARC would be application/marc+xml, although until registered should be application/x-marc+xml. Alex -- --- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps -- http://shelter.nu/blog/
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Johannesen Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:00 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.? On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 21:43, Rebecca S Guenther r...@loc.gov wrote: Patrick is right that an XML schema such as MODS or MARCXML would be text/xml. I would strongly advise against text/xml, as it is an oxymoron (text is not XML XML is not text even if it is delivered through a text protocol), and more and more are switching away from the generic text protocol (which makes little sense in structured data). According to RFC 3023, section 3 XML Media Types: If an XML document -- that is, the unprocessed, source XML document -- is readable by casual users, text/xml is preferable to application/xml. MIME user agents (and web user agents) that do not have explicit support for text/xml will treat it as text/plain, for example, by displaying the XML MIME entity as plain text. Application/xml is preferable when the XML MIME entity is unreadable by casual users. So it is justified to return a Content-Type header with text/xml. It depends upon whether you think MARC-XML, MODS, MADS, etc. are readable by casual users and the user agents you expect to be accessing the documents. Hence, a more correct MIME type for XMLMARC would be application/marc+xml, although until registered should be application/x-marc+xml. I'm not sure the +xml is correct on two fronts. First RFC 2220 defines the media type for MARC binary, not MARC-XML, and it was my understanding that the +xml meant that the schema allowed extension by using XML namespaces which MARC binary does not. Further, in the case of MARC-XML, its schema also does not allow arbitrary XML elements. MODS and MADS I believe do, but that is a different story. Andy.
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
Didn't we finish having this conversation last week? We talked about all this stuff being brought up now last week. Andrew, for why marc+xml is appropriate, see RFC 3023. I am completely confident that application/marc+xml would be the right type to register for (eg) MARC XML , and that until it is registered application/x-marc+xml is appropriate. (I think it would actually be useful if LC published some guidance suggesting using application/x-marc+xml and application/x-mods+xml etc, until they are registered officially, which really ought to be done soon). There is no formal tie between application/marc and (hypothetically registered) application/marc+xml, they are completely seperate registrations--registering an application/marc+xml actually has nothing to do with the application/marc registration. See RFC 3023. We _could_ call a MARC-xml registration application/lcmarc+xml or something, it would just be confusing. Of course there are more than one hypothetical way to serialize MARC as XML -- that's why you do an IANA registration, to specify which one you mean. (And if you needed to register a second one, you could use application/marc-other+xml or something). Of course, in reality, there's only one XML serialization of MARC anyone uses. +xml has nothing to do with allowing namespace extensions, except in the sense that all theoretically does XML does. +xml is a hint that the content type registered is a particular XML application. If that application's schema or spec does not allow inclusion of arbitrary namespaced XML, that's got nothing to do with an +xml content type. Again, see RFC 3023. application/xml or text/xml would also be legal, although not nearly as useful. text/xml should only be used if you want user agents who don't 'know' xml to degrade to displaying the source (xml tags at all) essentially as text/plain. Which is a question that doesn't really come up much realistically, but all contemporary RFCs on XML and internet content types advise against using text/xml except in vary specific circumstances--although it IS legal. application/xml is also of course legal, but not nearly as useful as a specific registered type like application/marc+xml. Any modern user agent knows to degrade application/*+xml to being treated like application/xml, if the user agent doesn't know the specific type. Jonathan Houghton,Andrew wrote: From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Johannesen Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:00 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.? On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 21:43, Rebecca S Guenther r...@loc.gov wrote: Patrick is right that an XML schema such as MODS or MARCXML would be text/xml. I would strongly advise against text/xml, as it is an oxymoron (text is not XML XML is not text even if it is delivered through a text protocol), and more and more are switching away from the generic text protocol (which makes little sense in structured data). According to RFC 3023, section 3 XML Media Types: If an XML document -- that is, the unprocessed, source XML document -- is readable by casual users, text/xml is preferable to application/xml. MIME user agents (and web user agents) that do not have explicit support for text/xml will treat it as text/plain, for example, by displaying the XML MIME entity as plain text. Application/xml is preferable when the XML MIME entity is unreadable by casual users. So it is justified to return a Content-Type header with text/xml. It depends upon whether you think MARC-XML, MODS, MADS, etc. are readable by casual users and the user agents you expect to be accessing the documents. Hence, a more correct MIME type for XMLMARC would be application/marc+xml, although until registered should be application/x-marc+xml. I'm not sure the +xml is correct on two fronts. First RFC 2220 defines the media type for MARC binary, not MARC-XML, and it was my understanding that the +xml meant that the schema allowed extension by using XML namespaces which MARC binary does not. Further, in the case of MARC-XML, its schema also does not allow arbitrary XML elements. MODS and MADS I believe do, but that is a different story. Andy.
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 22:32, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: Didn't we finish having this conversation last week? We talked about all this stuff being brought up now last week. We did indeed, and your summary is better than what my retort could have been; spot on. I guess it's hard to understand why text/xml is such a waste of MIME and time as long as we still got text/html as the original understood MIME for HTML pages, but luckily the internet has moved on and evolved. :) One question we haven't asked is if we really need a MIME type for MARCXML. :) Alex -- --- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps -- http://shelter.nu/blog/
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
Actually, re-reading some of the RFCs, I would clarify one thing. It seems like using unregistered x- MIME type is discouraged, and instead you are encouraged to use what is (claimed to be) a very quick and easy and painless process of registering vnd. types. So I'd encourage LC to investigate doing that for MARC, while waiting for someone to have time to do an actual (more time consuming) application/marc+xml registration. That would give us the beneift of an actual registration (albeit under vnc.) instead of an unregistered x-. As far as text/xml, the general consensus on the internet seems to be that it was a mistake, but it's there and no one cares enough to try to somehow remove it, so it _is_ legal, but nobody really encourages using it. One problem with text/html is that it's default char encoding is ascii, while the default char encoding for XML is of course UTF-8. This can very easily lead to confusion and encoding errors unless software is more careful than we know most software has a tendency to be. :) Still, it's legal, but I don't see any reason to encourage it's use for MARC. application/xml, sure, but it would be _really_ useful, for the reasons discussed in last week's thread, to have a specific type for marc xml (and mods). If the folks at LC don't understand why, thinking that application/xml is sufficient, i could try to write up a persuasive essay again, or copy and paste from last week's thread. Or is there someone else other than LC who could conceivably fill out an application for application/marc+xml and application/mods_xml? Seriously, application/xml is not sufficient, although it is legal. Jonathan Alexander Johannesen wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 22:32, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: Didn't we finish having this conversation last week? We talked about all this stuff being brought up now last week. We did indeed, and your summary is better than what my retort could have been; spot on. I guess it's hard to understand why text/xml is such a waste of MIME and time as long as we still got text/html as the original understood MIME for HTML pages, but luckily the internet has moved on and evolved. :) One question we haven't asked is if we really need a MIME type for MARCXML. :) Alex -- --- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps -- http://shelter.nu/blog/
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
Alexander Johannesen wrote: One question we haven't asked is if we really need a MIME type for MARCXML. :) PPS: Yes, it has been asked, and it's pretty obvious to me that we do. Because I write lots of software that will be fetching MARCXML from the web, and needs to know what it's got. Much of this software is capable of fetching information in many formats, or even arbitrarily in any format, which doesn't mean it'll know what to _do_ with any arbitrary format. It needs to identify the content type and decide if it knows what to do with it. [One example is OpenURL rft_ref]. If you start to come up with reasons why you don't need an Internet Content Type (nee MIME Type) to identify what arbitrary content is, then please see the Appendix A to RFC 3023, where they provide easily readable and compelling arguments for why a Content Type makes this _much_ more convenient, reliable, and efficient. As someone contemplating writing such software, I agree with their arguments. Jonathan Alex -- --- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps -- http://shelter.nu/blog/
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the mime type for MARC-XML and MODS be application/xml, like every other xml file? As for MARC-binary, I can't say. I don't have any of those files handy. Ethan On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I am actually rather shocked that it seems that MARC-XML, MODS, MARC21-binary, do not have registered Internet Content Types (aka MIME types). Am I missing something, or is this really so? Anyone know what the process is for registering such? Anyone want to help try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards organizations for each of those types, rather than doing it independently? Jonathan
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
MARC21 binary has a content-type of application/marc - see http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2220.html. -- Mark A. Matienzo Applications Developer, Digital Experience Group The New York Public Library On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I am actually rather shocked that it seems that MARC-XML, MODS, MARC21-binary, do not have registered Internet Content Types (aka MIME types). Am I missing something, or is this really so? Anyone know what the process is for registering such? Anyone want to help try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards organizations for each of those types, rather than doing it independently? Jonathan
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
Not sure about the binary MARC, but all flavors of xml should be typed to either text/xml or application/xml, yes? patrick On 2/4/09 10:47 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I am actually rather shocked that it seems that MARC-XML, MODS, MARC21-binary, do not have registered Internet Content Types (aka MIME types). Am I missing something, or is this really so? Anyone know what the process is for registering such? Anyone want to help try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards organizations for each of those types, rather than doing it independently? Jonathan
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
His point, though, is that you can't tell the format being used until you open the document and try to negotiate it that way. So if you think in terms of content-negotiation and a particular resource is available in EAD, MARC XML and Dubin Core, you have no way of expressing that. Jonathan, this has come up before. Ed Summers and I kicked around the idea of registering these but never got anywhere (mainly because neither one of us was really interested in writing the RFCs). Clay Redding might be doing something, as I recall... -Ross. On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Ethan Gruber ewg4x...@gmail.com wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the mime type for MARC-XML and MODS be application/xml, like every other xml file? As for MARC-binary, I can't say. I don't have any of those files handy. Ethan On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I am actually rather shocked that it seems that MARC-XML, MODS, MARC21-binary, do not have registered Internet Content Types (aka MIME types). Am I missing something, or is this really so? Anyone know what the process is for registering such? Anyone want to help try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards organizations for each of those types, rather than doing it independently? Jonathan
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
You CAN use application/xml for any XML, but it's often useful to have a specific type for your specific content, so the user-agent can know what to do with it. The convention is to include +xml on the end, so if the user agent doens't know your specific format, it can fall back to treating it as generic XML. For instance: application/rss+xml application/atom+xml application/rdf+xml And dozens more you can see at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/ (search for +xml). Thanks to Mark and Ross Singer for pointing out application/marc already exists. (and is on that list above). Awesome. I'm still feeling the need for application/marc+xml, and application/mods+xml Jonathan Ethan Gruber wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the mime type for MARC-XML and MODS be application/xml, like every other xml file? As for MARC-binary, I can't say. I don't have any of those files handy. Ethan On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I am actually rather shocked that it seems that MARC-XML, MODS, MARC21-binary, do not have registered Internet Content Types (aka MIME types). Am I missing something, or is this really so? Anyone know what the process is for registering such? Anyone want to help try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards organizations for each of those types, rather than doing it independently? Jonathan
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
If anyone does want to work on it, I'd be happy to help. Maybe I'll contact clay. The most immediate and clear need I see is for application/marc+xml and application/mods. MADS could be useful, I dunno. Not sure if a seperate one would be needed for MFHD? With all the effort on making web-friendly APIs for library bibliographic control systems (DLF task force, jangle, etc.), having MIME types for these formats will make everything flow much more smoothly and clearly. Of course, even without them being registered, we can use application/x-marc+xml and application/x-mods right away, which is probably what I'll do. Jonathan Ross Singer wrote: His point, though, is that you can't tell the format being used until you open the document and try to negotiate it that way. So if you think in terms of content-negotiation and a particular resource is available in EAD, MARC XML and Dubin Core, you have no way of expressing that. Jonathan, this has come up before. Ed Summers and I kicked around the idea of registering these but never got anywhere (mainly because neither one of us was really interested in writing the RFCs). Clay Redding might be doing something, as I recall... -Ross. On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Ethan Gruber ewg4x...@gmail.com wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the mime type for MARC-XML and MODS be application/xml, like every other xml file? As for MARC-binary, I can't say. I don't have any of those files handy. Ethan On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I am actually rather shocked that it seems that MARC-XML, MODS, MARC21-binary, do not have registered Internet Content Types (aka MIME types). Am I missing something, or is this really so? Anyone know what the process is for registering such? Anyone want to help try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards organizations for each of those types, rather than doing it independently? Jonathan
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
Rather than defining new media types, I was thinking it would make more sense to add a schema and/or namespace parameter to text/xml or application/xml. Then you could use those types and append the parameter to indicate the specific structure of the content. Just a though, Devon -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Wed 2/4/2009 11:01 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.? If anyone does want to work on it, I'd be happy to help. Maybe I'll contact clay. The most immediate and clear need I see is for application/marc+xml and application/mods. MADS could be useful, I dunno. Not sure if a seperate one would be needed for MFHD? With all the effort on making web-friendly APIs for library bibliographic control systems (DLF task force, jangle, etc.), having MIME types for these formats will make everything flow much more smoothly and clearly. Of course, even without them being registered, we can use application/x-marc+xml and application/x-mods right away, which is probably what I'll do. Jonathan Ross Singer wrote: His point, though, is that you can't tell the format being used until you open the document and try to negotiate it that way. So if you think in terms of content-negotiation and a particular resource is available in EAD, MARC XML and Dubin Core, you have no way of expressing that. Jonathan, this has come up before. Ed Summers and I kicked around the idea of registering these but never got anywhere (mainly because neither one of us was really interested in writing the RFCs). Clay Redding might be doing something, as I recall... -Ross. On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Ethan Gruber ewg4x...@gmail.com wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the mime type for MARC-XML and MODS be application/xml, like every other xml file? As for MARC-binary, I can't say. I don't have any of those files handy. Ethan On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I am actually rather shocked that it seems that MARC-XML, MODS, MARC21-binary, do not have registered Internet Content Types (aka MIME types). Am I missing something, or is this really so? Anyone know what the process is for registering such? Anyone want to help try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards organizations for each of those types, rather than doing it independently? Jonathan
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
Well, except this isn't legal. Parameters are defined by the RFC, so you can't just pass arbitrary data with any request. I had this same idea for embedding other content types within Atom feeds, but... no go. -Ross. On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Smith,Devon smit...@oclc.org wrote: Rather than defining new media types, I was thinking it would make more sense to add a schema and/or namespace parameter to text/xml or application/xml. Then you could use those types and append the parameter to indicate the specific structure of the content. Just a though, Devon -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Wed 2/4/2009 11:01 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.? If anyone does want to work on it, I'd be happy to help. Maybe I'll contact clay. The most immediate and clear need I see is for application/marc+xml and application/mods. MADS could be useful, I dunno. Not sure if a seperate one would be needed for MFHD? With all the effort on making web-friendly APIs for library bibliographic control systems (DLF task force, jangle, etc.), having MIME types for these formats will make everything flow much more smoothly and clearly. Of course, even without them being registered, we can use application/x-marc+xml and application/x-mods right away, which is probably what I'll do. Jonathan Ross Singer wrote: His point, though, is that you can't tell the format being used until you open the document and try to negotiate it that way. So if you think in terms of content-negotiation and a particular resource is available in EAD, MARC XML and Dubin Core, you have no way of expressing that. Jonathan, this has come up before. Ed Summers and I kicked around the idea of registering these but never got anywhere (mainly because neither one of us was really interested in writing the RFCs). Clay Redding might be doing something, as I recall... -Ross. On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Ethan Gruber ewg4x...@gmail.com wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the mime type for MARC-XML and MODS be application/xml, like every other xml file? As for MARC-binary, I can't say. I don't have any of those files handy. Ethan On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I am actually rather shocked that it seems that MARC-XML, MODS, MARC21-binary, do not have registered Internet Content Types (aka MIME types). Am I missing something, or is this really so? Anyone know what the process is for registering such? Anyone want to help try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards organizations for each of those types, rather than doing it independently? Jonathan
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
That would make sense if you want to actually change the HTTP/web standards and establish new conventions. :) Me, I don't need to fix the internet right now. The application/foo+xml convention is pretty well established, and even specified in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt (thanks anarchivist!). It will work good enough for many purposes, as it does for application/rss+xml etc. But yeah, this +xml convention it's not as flexible as you might like, it can't handle everything in the web/xml world, but fixing that means changing/fixing/establishing new standards/conventions, and, for the moment, that's 'out of my pay grade', just getting application/mods+xml and application/marc+xml registered would be good enough, and in keeping with that RFC and currently accepted conventions. Jonathan Smith,Devon wrote: Rather than defining new media types, I was thinking it would make more sense to add a schema and/or namespace parameter to text/xml or application/xml. Then you could use those types and append the parameter to indicate the specific structure of the content. Just a though, Devon -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Wed 2/4/2009 11:01 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.? If anyone does want to work on it, I'd be happy to help. Maybe I'll contact clay. The most immediate and clear need I see is for application/marc+xml and application/mods. MADS could be useful, I dunno. Not sure if a seperate one would be needed for MFHD? With all the effort on making web-friendly APIs for library bibliographic control systems (DLF task force, jangle, etc.), having MIME types for these formats will make everything flow much more smoothly and clearly. Of course, even without them being registered, we can use application/x-marc+xml and application/x-mods right away, which is probably what I'll do. Jonathan Ross Singer wrote: His point, though, is that you can't tell the format being used until you open the document and try to negotiate it that way. So if you think in terms of content-negotiation and a particular resource is available in EAD, MARC XML and Dubin Core, you have no way of expressing that. Jonathan, this has come up before. Ed Summers and I kicked around the idea of registering these but never got anywhere (mainly because neither one of us was really interested in writing the RFCs). Clay Redding might be doing something, as I recall... -Ross. On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Ethan Gruber ewg4x...@gmail.com wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the mime type for MARC-XML and MODS be application/xml, like every other xml file? As for MARC-binary, I can't say. I don't have any of those files handy. Ethan On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I am actually rather shocked that it seems that MARC-XML, MODS, MARC21-binary, do not have registered Internet Content Types (aka MIME types). Am I missing something, or is this really so? Anyone know what the process is for registering such? Anyone want to help try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards organizations for each of those types, rather than doing it independently? Jonathan
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
I thought that a type had been defined - thanks, Mark. Looking at it, it's from 1997 and represents the LC MARC standard at that time (it says: harmonized USMARC/CANMARC specification, whatever that is.) This brings up the usual question of what we mean by MARC -- the structure or the content -- and the fact that we don't have any versioning in place for the many changes that the MARC content has gone through. If nothing else, using this for MARC 'binary' would get you started. But it doesn't give you something you could use for other MARC binaries, like Unimarc. BTW, it also doesn't distinguish between bibliographic, authority, etc. MARC record types, since that info is in the Leader. That's what it says. kc Mark A. Matienzo wrote: MARC21 binary has a content-type of application/marc - see http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2220.html. -- Mark A. Matienzo Applications Developer, Digital Experience Group The New York Public Library On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I am actually rather shocked that it seems that MARC-XML, MODS, MARC21-binary, do not have registered Internet Content Types (aka MIME types). Am I missing something, or is this really so? Anyone know what the process is for registering such? Anyone want to help try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards organizations for each of those types, rather than doing it independently? Jonathan -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant kco...@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
Sure, I know. I wasn't very clear. I meant that instead of going to IANA to get new media types, he should go to IETF to publish a new RFC with the new parameters. I don't know how each approach compares in terms of time and hassle, but the IETF approach looks like it would have /much/ broader value. But whatever. /dev -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Ross Singer Sent: Wed 2/4/2009 12:10 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.? Well, except this isn't legal. Parameters are defined by the RFC, so you can't just pass arbitrary data with any request. I had this same idea for embedding other content types within Atom feeds, but... no go. -Ross. On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Smith,Devon smit...@oclc.org wrote: Rather than defining new media types, I was thinking it would make more sense to add a schema and/or namespace parameter to text/xml or application/xml. Then you could use those types and append the parameter to indicate the specific structure of the content. Just a though, Devon -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Wed 2/4/2009 11:01 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.? If anyone does want to work on it, I'd be happy to help. Maybe I'll contact clay. The most immediate and clear need I see is for application/marc+xml and application/mods. MADS could be useful, I dunno. Not sure if a seperate one would be needed for MFHD? With all the effort on making web-friendly APIs for library bibliographic control systems (DLF task force, jangle, etc.), having MIME types for these formats will make everything flow much more smoothly and clearly. Of course, even without them being registered, we can use application/x-marc+xml and application/x-mods right away, which is probably what I'll do. Jonathan Ross Singer wrote: His point, though, is that you can't tell the format being used until you open the document and try to negotiate it that way. So if you think in terms of content-negotiation and a particular resource is available in EAD, MARC XML and Dubin Core, you have no way of expressing that. Jonathan, this has come up before. Ed Summers and I kicked around the idea of registering these but never got anywhere (mainly because neither one of us was really interested in writing the RFCs). Clay Redding might be doing something, as I recall... -Ross. On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Ethan Gruber ewg4x...@gmail.com wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the mime type for MARC-XML and MODS be application/xml, like every other xml file? As for MARC-binary, I can't say. I don't have any of those files handy. Ethan On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I am actually rather shocked that it seems that MARC-XML, MODS, MARC21-binary, do not have registered Internet Content Types (aka MIME types). Am I missing something, or is this really so? Anyone know what the process is for registering such? Anyone want to help try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards organizations for each of those types, rather than doing it independently? Jonathan
