[OAI-implementers] points to ponder
Tue, 13 May 2003 14:21:01 -0400
It's possible to use all the same names ("ListRecords" "GetRecord"
"identifier", etc) in a *different* namespace with no conflict.
My impression, like Jewel's, is that OAI-PMH is narrow by design. If
your needs are broader, that's no problem -- express those needs in a
separate namespace. I'm guessing you can even start out with a schema
very similar to OAI-PMH, and change things as you desire ... including
the targetNamespace. (And attribute OAI-PMH, of course).
There might even be a community that would find your specialized
protocol useful ... but OAI can't be all things to all people.
From: Jewel Ward [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [OAI-implementers] points to ponder
>i remember some 3 years ago, when OAIv1.0 was being designed we
>to Z39.50 as the "800-pound gorilla" - the protocol that everyone
>supported and you did not openly challenge. is OAI-PMH the new
As far as I know, the idea of keeping and continuing to keep the OAI-PMH
parameters narrow is to *prevent* the OAI-PMH from turning into an "800
Z39.50-ish gorilla". I believe the intention is not to make the OAI-PMH
into an untouchable/unchangeable Holy Grail, so much as (to) "KISS"
It Simple, Stupid).
Jewel H. Ward
Graduate Research Assistant, Post-master's
Los Alamos National Laboratory
OAI-implementers mailing list
List information, archives, preferences and to unsubscribe: