I agree with Jonathan and David. The only reason there are no examples
of including <dlf:simpleavailability> within <dlf:holdingsrec> is
because no one thought of a use case for why you would do that. The xsd
for <dlf:holdingsrec> explicitly states that it is simply "Metadata must
be expressed in XML that complies with another XML Schema
(namespace=#other). Metadata must be explicitly qualified in the
response." So the only restriction is that it's some kind of
standardized metadata! While we had envisioned using something like
MARCXML or ISO Holdings here to express things like serial runs, there
is no reason that simpleavailability could not be employed to describe a
different kind of collection of items. The <dlf:holdingset> and
<dlf:holdingsrec> are after all intended to represent a collection of
items, and as David points out, the ISO Holdings schema explicitly
allows for collection-level availability summary. And I will also note
that ISO Holdings certainly does express availability in addition to
'holdings'; they are really one and the same thing. I guess I should
note that I was a member of the original DLF group, so I suppose this is
a fairly authoritative perspective on the original intent of the
elements. :) -emily ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct
2010 16:26:54 -0400 From: Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> Subject:
Re: 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
>> >>
>> >>
>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Emily Lynema
Associate Department Head
Information Technology, NCSU Libraries
919-513-8031
[log in to unmask]
|
