 |
 |
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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >>