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. >>> >>> >>> > > >