 |
 |
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Houghton,Andrew <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Not saying you're wrong Ross, but it depends. People adopted MARC-XML > by looking at the .xsd without an actual specification. Granted it's > not a complicated schema however, and there already existed the "MARC 21 > Specifications for Record Structure, Character Sets, and Exchange Media" > so it wasn't a big leap to adopt MARC-XML, IMHO. > I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but this is a specious example, I think. Examining a MARC-XML file shows you how to do a mechanical translation from a ridiculously simple non-XML syntax into an XML syntax -- the actual data itself remains completely opaque. The MARC-XML schema + AACR2 gives you what you need. The ISO 208775 schema, for example, include elements like <xs:element name="physicalLocation"> -- and there's no way you're going to know what the hell goes in there without a lot more help. And if you were to have to pay for that help, many would rely on cheat-sheets or pattern-matching and it all goes to hell. -- Bill Dueber Library Systems Programmer University of Michigan Library