OK - thanks both will pursue this - taking on board Jonathan's points on the issues around this

Owen

Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Web: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: [log in to unmask]
Telephone: 0121 288 6936

On 21 Oct 2010, at 22:07, Walker, David wrote:

>> Yes - my reading was that dlf:holdings was for pure 'holdings' 
>> as opposed to 'availability'.
> 
> I would agree with Jonathan that putting a summary of item availability in <dlf:holdings> is not an abuse.
> 
> For example, ISO Holdings -- one of the schemas the DLF-ILS documents suggests using here -- has elements for things like:
> 
>  <holdings:copiesSummary>
>    <holdings:status>
>      <holdings:availableCount>
> 
> Very much the kind of summary information you are using.  Those are different from it's <holdings:copyInformation> element, which describes individual items.
> 
> So IMO it wouldn't be (much of) a stretch to express this in dlf:simpleavailability instead.
> 
> --Dave
> 
> ==================
> David Walker
> Library Web Services Manager
> California State University
> http://xerxes.calstate.edu
> ________________________________________
> From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 1:26 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Help with DLF-ILS GetAvailability
> 
> I don't think that's an abuse.  I consider <dlf:holdings> to be for
> information about a "holdingset", or some collection of "items", while
> <dlf:item> is for information about an individual item.
> 
> I think regardless of what you do you are being over-optimistic in
> thinking that if you just "do dlf", your stuff will interchangeable with
> any other clients or servers "doing dlf". The spec is way too open-ended
> for that, it leaves a whole bunch of details not specified and up to the
> implementer.  For better or worse. I made more comments about this in
> the blog post I referenced earlier.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> Owen Stephens wrote:
>> Thanks Dave,
>> 
>> Yes - my reading was that dlf:holdings was for pure 'holdings' as opposed to
>> 'availability'. We could put the simpleavailability in there I guess but as
>> you say since we are controlling both ends then there doesn't seem any point
>> in abusing it like that. The downside is we'd hoped to do something that
>> could be taken by other sites - the original plan was to use the Juice
>> framework - developed by Talis using jQuery to parse a standard availability
>> format so that this could then be applied easily in other environments.
>> Obviously we can still achieve the outcome we need for the immediate
>> requirements of the project by using a custom format.
>> 
>> Thanks again
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Walker, David <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Hey Owen,
>>> 
>>> Seems like the you could use the <dlf:holdings> element to hold this kind
>>> of individual library information.
>>> 
>>> The DLF-ILS documentation doesn't seem to think that you would use
>>> dlf:simpleavailability here, though, but rather MARC or ISO holdings
>>> schemas.
>>> 
>>> But if you're controlling both ends of the communication, I don't know if
>>> it really matters.
>>> 
>>> --Dave
>>> 
>>> ==================
>>> David Walker
>>> Library Web Services Manager
>>> California State University
>>> http://xerxes.calstate.edu
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Owen
>>> Stephens [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:22 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: [CODE4LIB] Help with DLF-ILS GetAvailability
>>> 
>>> I'm working with the University of Oxford to look at integrating some
>>> library services into their VLE/Learning Management System (Sakai). One of
>>> the services is something that will give availability for items on a reading
>>> list in the VLE (the Sakai 'Citation Helper'), and I'm looking at the
>>> DLF-ILS GetAvailability specification to achieve this.
>>> 
>>> For physical items, the availability information I was hoping to use is
>>> expressed at the level of a physical collection. For example, if several
>>> college libraries within the University I have aggregated information that
>>> tells me the availability of the item in each of the college libraries.
>>> However, I don't have item level information.
>>> 
>>> I can see how I can use simpleavailability to say over the entire
>>> institution whether (e.g.) a book is available or not. However, I'm not
>>> clear I can express this in a more granular way (say availability on a
>>> library by library basis) except by going to item level. Also although it
>>> seems you can express multiple locations in simpleavailability, and multiple
>>> availabilitymsg, there is no way I can see to link these, so although I
>>> could list each location OK, I can't attach an availabilitymsg to a specific
>>> location (unless I only express one location).
>>> 
>>> Am I missing something, or is my interpretation correct?
>>> 
>>> Any other suggestions?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>> PS also looked at DAIA which I like, but this (as far as I can tell) only
>>> allows availabitlity to be specified at the level of items
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Owen Stephens
>>> Owen Stephens Consulting
>>> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>