On 19 Jan 2011, at 10:05, Ian Stuart wrote: > On 19/01/11 09:49, Scott Wilson wrote: >> I would suggest SWORD is completely agnostic on the subject of >> packaged content formats, but that the SWORD implementation community >> make a concerted effort to identify and support a common core of >> packaging and metadata formats so that there is practical >> on-the-ground interoperability with a reliable default format for >> client implementations to support out-of-the-box. > Bearing in mind that I have my tongue embedded firmly in my cheek here...
Oh good! > I have an excellent content package that will either work with binary data > directly included or passed-by-reference, and I am working on Importers for > DSpace & EPrints as we speak... as outputs of the OA-RJ Broker work. I suggest we standardise on a really crappy packaging format with almost zero features, combined with a totally inadequate metadata schema. At least that way it might actually work.* > On a serious note: yes - the transport mechanism should be agnostic to the > content... unless one wants to define a content transfer mechanism rather > than a transport mechanism :) > > -- > > Ian Stuart. > Developer: Open Access Repository Junction and OpenDepot.org > Bibliographics and Multimedia Service Delivery team, > EDINA, > The University of Edinburgh. > > http://edina.ac.uk/ > > This email was sent via the University of Edinburgh. > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
