[OAI-implementers] Sets in and subjects in OAI-PMH
Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:54:13 -0400 (EDT)
You have good points. I was thinking that if we had a standardized set of
subjects/sets to use, it would be simpler/easier to analyze/divide/catalog
the records, for further use. Are there any international standards that
could be used?
> while everyone says their piece on standardisation of sets, can we
> please think carefully on where this falls in the spectrum between data
> provision and service provision.
> it seems this is a first-tier service rather than a data provider
> function. as such, it can be implemented (and has been in the ODL
> project and NDLTD Union Catalog) as a component that analyses metadata
> and dynamically organises records into sets for further
> access/harvesting. of course this means thinking of digital libraries as
> collections of service-oriented components ... very much in line with
> the Web Services philosophy.
> so why aren't other service providers doing this?
> p.s. is LCSH international? is it used in South Africa? Ethiopia?
> Thomas G. Habing wrote:
>> Jody DeRidder wrote:
>>> Seems to me that search, selection and sortation would *all* be much more
>>> useful at the service provider level if we had standardized lists of
>>> sets AND
>>> subjects (LCSH? SEARS?) from which to select when creating records
>>> at the
>>> repository level.
>>> OAI-implementers mailing list
>>> List information, archives, preferences and to unsubscribe:
>> For an interesting view of set usage across different OAI repositories
>> look at my Experimental OAI Registry at
>> http://oai.grainger.uiuc.edu/registry/, specifically the miscellaneous
>> Repositories Sorted by Number of Sets
>> Frequently Occurring Distinct Set Specs
>> Browse All Distinct Set Specs (hex encoded set are decoded)
>> Frequently Occurring Distinct Set Names
>> Browse All Distinct Set Names
>> From this it appears that set usage is all over the place. There are
>> some repositories that have more sets than they do individual records.
>> There are also many that list sets for which they have no records. And,
>> while I understand why it was done, I am finding the setSpecs that are
>> hex encoded strings to be quite annoying -- my OAI pet peeve of the
>> moment. :-)
>> Anyway, I guess I am seconding the call for some set standardization as
>> long as it stays simple. I also like Sarah Shreeves idea that this
>> should be driven in large part by service providers and not just
>> metadata providers.
>> Kind regards,
> hussein suleman ~ firstname.lastname@example.org ~ http://www.husseinsspace.com
> OAI-implementers mailing list
> List information, archives, preferences and to unsubscribe: