From: Mike Taylor
Any thoughts on how I might use this to express the copyright status of
the item's abstract?
One way, that I have heard discussed (though I don't know if anyone is doing
it) is to represent the abstract as part of a related item (type =
constituent). The related item could
Along the lines of oh, you meant THIS profession
Rotational vs. linear mechanics.
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
Nate Vack
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 4:47 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] If
I think the constraint is that it has to be a rational number.
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Eric
Hellman
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:58 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] mailing list
It really is possible to make your point without being quite so obnoxious.
Everyone else seems to be able to do so. --Ray
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Alexander Johannesen
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 3:38 PM
To:
Joe Hourcle wrote:
Do we have anyone affiliated with the project on this list who can make a
correction before it leaves draft?
Could you submit this suggestion formally See:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=search-ws
(The SRU and CQL development gets
There is no synchronous operation in SRU.
As for federated search .
To digress a moment, you may recall -- I believe it was on this list --
there was discussion (maybe a year ago?) of what that even means and whether
it is the same or differs from metasearch, whatever that means. That
On 18 May 2010 15:24, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress r...@loc.gov
wrote:
There is no synchronous operation in SRU.
Sorry, meant to say no asynchronous .
--Ray
decent user experience you need to be able to present some results sooner
than others. Waiting for the slowest database to respond is usually not an
option.
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
r...@loc.gov wrote:
On 18 May 2010 15:24, Ray Denenberg, Library
First, no. There are extensibility features in SRU but nothing that would
help here.
Actually, Jonathan, what I though you were suggesting was the creation of a
(I hesitate to say it) metasearch engine. I use that term because it is what
NISO called it, when they started their metasearch
only in a single (hard-coded) parameter.
--Ray
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] OASIS SRU and CQL, access to most-current drafts
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
Another question though. I note when looking up schemaInfo... I'm a bit
confused by the sort attribute. How could you sort by a schema? What is
this attribute actually for?
Well indulge me, this is best explained by the current OASIS SRU draft.
(The
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
But you will leave sorting as part of CQL too in any changes to CQL specs,
I hope? I think CQL has a lot of use even outside of SRU proper, so I
encourage you to leave it's spec not too tightly coupled to SRU.
The OASIS TC firmly supports this
schemaInfo is what you're looking for I think.
Look at http://z3950.loc.gov:7090/voyager.
Line 74, for example,
schemaInfo
schema identifier=info:srw/schema/1/marcxml-v1.1 sort=false
name=marcxml
titleMARCXML/title
/schema
Is this what you're looking for?
--Ray
- Original Message
If you're going to host it at Notre Dame I would expect an agenda something
like this (do it on Saturday, 9/11)
1. meet greet (mid-morning)
2. Tailgate (noon)
3. Notre Dame Vs. Michigan (3:30)
4. presentation to library staff
5. hack session
6. go home
Can you get us in to the game, Eric?
Any element that is not a child of another. Or another way to look at it,
any element that can be referenced by ref=.
In the following schema:
__
xs:schema
xs:element name=a type=aType/
xs:element name=b type=bType/
!-- !--
xs:complexType
I am not even remotely suggesting that anyone would implement the holdings
standard with nothing but the schema. We're working on a solution to this.
--Ray
- Original Message -
From: Houghton,Andrew hough...@oclc.org
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:26
From: Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
Well, it's not a great example, because I don't have a
'counter-example', but I think it will remain to be seen if ISO 20775
goes anywhere if it, too, remains behind a pay wall. If an open spec
were to come along that allowed the transfer of holdings and
But you have to pay $200 for the document that lists changes from last draft
to first official version.
(Ok, Ok, it was just a joke. But you do get the point.)
- Original Message -
From: st...@archive.org st...@archive.org
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009
From: Eric Lease Morgan emor...@nd.edu
1. What MARC field/subfield might I put this string?
2. How would I go about getting the string indexed?
3. How might I go about querying the server for records with this
string?
I can at least talk about the third question. There was work on a
From: Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
Except that OpenURL and SRU /already use different info URIs to
describe the same things/.
info:srw/schema/1/marcxml-v1.1
info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:MARC21
or
info:srw/schema/1/onix-v2.0
info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:onix
What is the rationale for this?
None.
Thanks, Ross. For SRU, this is an opportune time to reconcile these
differences. Opportune, because we are approaching standardization of
SRU/CQL within OASIS, and there will be a number of areas that need to
change.
Some observations.
1. the 'ofi' namespace of 'info' has the advantage that
From: Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com
The irony is that Z39.50 actually make _much_ more effort to specify
semantics than most other standards -- and yet still finds itself in
the situation where many implementations do not respond correctly to
the BIB-1 attribute 6=3 (completeness=complete
10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] exact title searches with z39.50
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
The irony is that Z39.50 actually make _much_ more effort to
specify semantics than most other standards -- and yet still
finds itself in the situation where many implementations do
From: Walker, David dwal...@calstate.edu
I'm not sure it's a _big_ mess, though, at least for metasearching.
I wasn't thinking specifically about metasearch, but rather, bad decisions
getting replicated and you end up with an installed base of bad
implementations. The best illustration
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
HTML works out pretty well. If our biggest failures were 'failures' like
HTML, we'd be doing pretty well.
HTML is a wonderful standard.
And I don't mean to take the discussion off-course. My point was simply
that because early browsers did not
From: Thomas Dowling tdowl...@ohiolink.edu
You can define differences between meta-, federated, and broadcast search,
but
every discussion on the topic will be punctuated by people asking, Wait,
what's the difference again?
Leaving aside metasearch and broadcast search (terms invented more
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
If you want to reclaim the term federated to mean a local index, I think
you have a losing battle in front of you.
It's not a battle I plan to pursue, I don't fight battles anymore. I just
feel obligated to observe that when vocabulary is tinkered with
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
The difference between URIs and URLs? I don't believe that URL is
something that exists any more in any standard, it's all URIs.
The URL is alive and well.
The W3C definition, http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/
a URL is a type of URI that
From: Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com
... anyway, all of this is far, far away from the point. MARC is old
and ugly yes; but then so am I,
I don't think you're old, Mike.
--Ray
which endpoint
is right for them -or arbitrarily chooses one for them.
-Ross.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
r...@loc.gov wrote:
We do just fine minting our URIs at LC, Andy. But we do appreciate your
concern.
The analysis of our MODS URIs misses the point, I'm
You're right, if there were a web: URI scheme, the world would be a
better place. But it's not, and the world is worse off for it.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that I am sympathetic to Karen's criticisms.
Here is some of my historical perspective (which may well differ from
others').
From: Houghton,Andrew hough...@oclc.org
The point being that:
urn:doi:*
info:doi:*
provide no advantages over:
http://doi.org/*
I think they do.
I realize this is pretty much a dead-end debate as everyone has dug
themselves into a position and nobody is going to change their mind. It is
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
There are all sorts of useful identifiers I use in my work every day that
can not be automatically dereferenced.
Even more to the point: there is no sound definition of dereference. To
dereference a resource means to retrieve a representation of it.
A concrete example.
The MODS schema, version 3.3, has an info identifier, for SRU purposes:
info:srw/schema/1/mods-v3.3
So in an SRU request you can say
recordSchema=info:srw/schema/1/mods-v3.3
Meaning you want records returned in the mods version 3.3 schema. And
that's really the purpose
From: Erik Hetzner erik.hetz...@ucop.edu
I believe that registering a domain would be less
work than going through an info URI registration process, but I don’t
know how difficult the info URI registration process would be (thus
bringing the conversation full circle). [1]
Leaving aside
From: Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
nobody gives a damn about info:uris outside of
libraries,
Nor do people outside of libraries care about identifiers.
--Ray
From: Hilmar Lapp hl...@duke.edu
Nor do people outside of libraries care about identifiers.
You might be surprised: http://www.lsrn.org/
yes, I overstated, let me rephrase. There are communities who are
interested in specific object classes and want identifier schemes for them.
For
you have a relationship with
a counter-part at GPO that might be interested in getting involved with
this?
Jonathan
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
It's a fairly straightforward process, See:
http://info-uri.info/registry/register.html
You should look at a few examples first, go
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the point of all this to be able to put
the URI in an OpenURL? And info was invented (in part) to avoid putting
http URIs in OpenURLs (because they are complicated enough already, why
clutter them further). So I don't see that pursuing an http solution to
.
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
] FW: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?
Cool! Can you post a response to CODE4LIB?
Thanks,
Jenn
-Original Message-
From: MODS Editorial Committee Forum [mailto:mods...@loc.gov] On Behalf Of
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:56 PM
To: mods
41 matches
Mail list logo
