> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
