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  March 2010

CODE4LIB March 2010

Subject:

Re: Q: XML2JSON converter [MARC-JSON]

From:

Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:49:34 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (161 lines)

Oh, I wasn't actually suggesting limiting to UTF-8 was the right way to 
go, I was asking your opinion!  It's not at all clear to me, but if your 
opinion is that UTF-8 is indeed the right way to go, that's comforting. :)

Bandwidth _does_ matter I think, it's primarily intended as a 
transmission format, and the reasons _I_ am interested in it as a 
transmission format over MarcXML is in large part precisely because it 
will be so much smaller a package, I'm running into various performance 
problems caused by the very large package size of MarcXML. (Disk space 
might be cheap, but bandwidth, over the network, or to the file system, 
is not neccesarily, for me anyway.)

But I'm not sure I'm concerned about UTF-8 bloating size of response, I 
think it will still be manageable and worth it to avoid confusion. I 
pretty much do _everything_ in UTF-8 myself these days, because it's 
just not worth the headache to me to do anything else. But I have MUCH 
less experience dealing with international character sets than you, 
which is why I was curious as to your opinion.  There's no reason the 
marc-hash-in-json proto-spec couldn't allow any valid JSON character 
encoding, if you/we/someone thinks it's neccesary/more-convenient.

Jonathan

Dan Scott wrote:
> I hate Groupwise for forcing me to top-post.
>
> Yes, you are right about everything. Limiting MARC-HASH to just UTF8, rather than supporting the full range of encodings allowed by JSON, probably makes it easier to generate and parse; it will bloat the size of the format for characters outside of the Basic Multilingual Plane but probably nobody cares, bandwidth is cheap, right? And this is primarily meant as a transmission format.
>
> I missed the part in the blog entry about the newline-delimited JSON because I was specifically looking for a mention of "collections". newline-delimited JSON would work, yes, and probably be easier / faster / less memory-intensive to parse.
>
> Dan
>
>   
>>>> Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> 03/18/10 10:41 AM >>>
>>>>         
> So do you think the marc-hash-to-json "proto-spec" should suggest that 
> the encoding HAS to be UTF-8, or should it leave it open to anything 
> that's legal JSON?   (Is there a problem I don't know about with 
> expressing "characters outside of the Basic Multilingual Plane" in 
> UTF-8?  Any unicode char can be encoded in any of the unicode encodings, 
> right?). 
>
> If "collections" means what I think, Bill's blog proto-spec says they 
> should be serialized as JSON-seperated-by-newlines, right?  That is, 
> JSON for each record, seperated by newlines. Rather than the alternative 
> approach you hypothesize there; there are various reasons to prefer 
> json-seperated-by-newlines, which is an actual convention used in the 
> wild, not something made up just for here.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Dan Scott wrote:
>   
>> Hey Bill:
>>
>> Do you have unit tests for MARC-HASH / JSON anywhere? If you do, that would make it easier for me to create a compliant PHP File_MARC_JSON variant, which I'll be happy-ish to create.
>>
>> The only concerns I have with your write-up are:
>>   * JSON itself allows UTF8, UTF16, and UTF32 encoding - and we've seen in Evergreen some cases where characters outside of the Basic Multilingual Plane are required. We eventually wound up resorting to surrogate pairs, in that case; so maybe this isn't a real issue.
>>   * You've mentioned that you would like to see better support for collections in File_MARC / File_MARCXML; but I don't see any mention of how collections would work in MARC-HASH / JSON. Would it just be something like the following?
>>
>> "collection": [
>>   {
>>     "type" : "marc-hash"
>>     "version" : [1, 0]
>>     "leader" : "…leader string … "
>>     "fields" : [array, of, fields]
>>   },
>>   {
>>     "type" : "marc-hash"
>>     "version" : [1, 0]
>>     "leader" : "…leader string … "
>>     "fields" : [array, of, fields]
>>   }
>> ]
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>   
>>     
>>>>> Bill Dueber <[log in to unmask]> 03/15/10 12:22 PM >>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>> I'm pretty sure Andrew was (a) completely unaware of anything I'd done, and
>> (b) looking to match marc-xml as strictly as reasonable.
>>
>> I also like the array-based rather than hash-based format, but I'm not gonna
>> go to the mat for it if no one else cares much.
>>
>> I would like to see ind1 and ind2 get their own fields, though, for easier
>> use of stuff like jsonpath in json-centric nosql databases.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> I would just ask why you didn't use Bill Dueber's already existing
>>> proto-spec, instead of making up your own incomptable one.
>>>
>>> I'd think we could somehow all do the same consistent thing here.
>>>
>>> Since my interest in marc-json is getting as small a package as possible
>>> for transfer accross the wire, I prefer Bill's approach.
>>>
>>> http://robotlibrarian.billdueber.com/new-interest-in-marc-hash-json/
>>>
>>>
>>> Houghton,Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>     
>>>       
>>>> From: Houghton,Andrew
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 06:59 PM
>>>>> To: Code for Libraries
>>>>> Subject: RE: [CODE4LIB] Q: XML2JSON converter
>>>>>
>>>>> Depending on how much time I get next week I'll talk with the developer
>>>>> network folks to see what I need to do to put a specification under
>>>>> their infrastructure
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>>> I finished documenting our existing use of MARC-JSON.  The specification
>>>> can be found on the OCLC developer network wiki [1].  Since it is a wiki,
>>>> registered developer network members can edit the specification and I would
>>>> ask that you refrain from doing so.
>>>>
>>>> However, please do use the discussion tab to record issues with the
>>>> specification or add additional information to existing issues.  There are
>>>> already two open issues on the discussion tab and you can use them as a
>>>> template for new issues.  The first issue is Bill Dueber's request for some
>>>> sort of versioning and the second issue is whether the specification should
>>>> specify the flavor of MARC, e.g., marc21, unicode, etc.
>>>>
>>>> It is recommended that you place issues on the discussion tab since that
>>>> will be the official place for documenting and disposing of them.  I do
>>>> monitor this listserve and the OCLC developer network listserve, but I only
>>>> selectively look at messages on those listserves.  If you would like to use
>>>> this listserve or the OCLC developer network listserve to discuss the
>>>> MARC-JSON specification, make sure you place MARC-JSON in the subject line,
>>>> to give me a clue that I *should* look at that message, or directly CC my
>>>> e-mail address on your post.
>>>>
>>>> This message marks the beginning of a two week comment period on the
>>>> specification which will end on midnight 2010-03-28.
>>>>
>>>> [1] <http://worldcat.org/devnet/wiki/MARC-JSON_Draft_2010-03-11>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Andy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>   
>>     
>
>   

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

January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
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