LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  April 2009

CODE4LIB April 2009

Subject:

Re: One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to Rule Them All

From:

Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:53:13 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (124 lines)

Technically it's 4 communities, but, yes, only two currently have
"credible" registries in place.

-Ross.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Crosswalk is exactly the wrong answer for this. Two very small overlapping communities of most library developers can surely agree on using the same identifiers, and then we make things easier for US.  We don't need to solve the entire universe of problems. Solve the simple problem in front of you in the simplest way that could possibly work and still leave room for future expansion and improvement. From that, we learn how to solve the big problems, when we're ready. Overreach and try to solve the huge problem including every possible use case, many of which don't apply to you but SOMEDAY MIGHT... and you end up with the kind of over-abstracted over-engineered too-complicated-to-actually-catch-on solutions that... we in the library community normally end up with.
> ________________________________________
> From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Noerr [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 6:37 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to Rule Them All
>
> Some further observations. So far this threadling has mentioned only trying to unify two different sets of identifiers. However there are a much larger number of them out there (and even larger numbers of schemas and other "standard-things-that-everyone-should-use-so-we-all-know-what-we-are-talking-about") and the problem exists for any of these things (identifiers, etc.) where there are more than one of them. So really unifying two sets of identifiers, while very useful, is not actually going to solve much.
>
> Is there any broader methodology we could approach which potentially allows multiple unifications or (my favourite) cross-walks. (Complete unification requires everybody agrees and sticks to it, and human history is sort of not on that track...) And who (people and organizations) would undertake this?
>
> Ross' point about a lightweight approach is necessary for any sort of adoption, but this is a problem (which plagues all we do in federated search) which cannot just be solved by another registry. Somebody/organisation has to look at the identifiers or whatever and decide that two of them are identical or, worse, only partially overlap and hence scope has to be defined. In a syntax that all understand of course. Already in this thread we have the sub/super case question from Karen (in a post on the openurl (or Z39.88 <sigh> - identifiers!) listserv). And the various identifiers for MARC (below) could easily be for MARC-XML, MARC21-ISO2709, MARCUK-ISO2709. Now explain in words of one (computer understandable) syllable what the differences are.
>
> I'm not trying to make problems. There are problems and this is only a small subset of them, and they confound us every day. I would love to adopt standard definitions for these things, but which Standard? Because anyone can produce any identifier they like, we have decided that the unification of them has to be kept internal where we at least have control of the unifications, even if they change pretty frequently.
>
> Peter
>
>
> Dr Peter Noerr
> CTO, MuseGlobal, Inc.
>
> +1 415 896 6873 (office)
> +1 415 793 6547 (mobile)
> www.museglobal.com
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Ross Singer
>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:00
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to Rule Them
>> All
>>
>> Hello everybody.  I apologize for the crossposting, but this is an
>> area that could (potentially) affect every one of these groups.  I
>> realize that not everybody will be able to respond to all lists,
>> but...
>>
>> First of all, some back story (Code4Lib subscribers can probably skip
>> ahead):
>>
>> Jangle [1] requires URIs to explicitly declare the format of the data
>> it is transporting (binary marc, marcxml, vcard, DLF
>> simpleAvailability, MODS, EAD, etc.).  In the past, it has used it's
>> own URI structure for this (http://jangle.org/vocab/formats#...) but
>> this was always been with the intention of moving out of the
>> jangle.org into a more "generic" space so it could be used by other
>> initiatives.
>>
>> This same concept came up in UnAPI [2] (I think this thread:
>> http://old.onebiglibrary.net/yale/cipolo/gcs-pcs-list/2006-
>> March/thread.html#682
>> discusses it a bit - there is a reference there that it maybe had come
>> up before) although was rejected ultimately in favor of an (optional)
>> approach more in line with how OAI-PMH disambiguates metadata formats.
>>  That being said, this page used to try to set sort of convention
>> around the UnAPI formats:
>> http://unapi.stikipad.com/unapi/show/existing+formats
>> But it's now just a squatter page.
>>
>> Jakob Voss pointed out that SRU has a schema registry and that it
>> would make sense to coordinate with this rather than mint new URIs for
>> things that have already been defined there:
>> http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/resources/schemas.html
>>
>> This, of course, made a lot of sense.  It also made me realize that
>> OpenURL *also* has a registry of metadata formats:
>> http://alcme.oclc.org/openurl/servlet/OAIHandler?verb=ListRecords&metadataP
>> refix=oai_dc&set=Core:Metadata+Formats
>>
>> The problem here is that OpenURL and SRW are using 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
>>
>> The latter technically isn't the same thing since the OpenURL one
>> claims it's an identifier for ONIX 2.1, but if I wasn't sending this
>> email now, eventually SRU would have registered
>> info:srw/schema/1/onix-v2.1
>>
>> There are several other examples, as well (MODS, ISO20775, etc.) and
>> it's not a stretch to envision more in the future.
>>
>> So there are a couple of questions here.
>>
>> First, and most importantly, how do we reconcile these different
>> identifiers for the same thing?  Can we come up with some agreement on
>> which ones we should really use?
>>
>> Secondly, and this gets to the reason why any of this was brought up
>> in the first place, how can we coordinate these identifiers more
>> effectively and efficiently to reuse among various specs and
>> protocols, but not:
>> 1) be tied to a particular community
>> 2) require some laborious and lengthy submission and review process to
>> just say "hey, here's my FOAF available via UnAPI"
>> 3) be so lax that it throws all hope of authority out the window
>> ?
>>
>> I would expect the various communities to still maintain their own
>> registries of "approved" data formats (well, OpenURL and SRU, anyway
>> -- it's not as appropriate to UnAPI or Jangle).
>>
>> Does something like this interest any of you?  Is there value in such
>> an initiative?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Ross.
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager