[OAI-implementers] Requesting a part of a record possible wit h OAI-OMH?

Pete Johnston p.johnston@ukoln.ac.uk
Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:37:48 -0000

Hussein said:

> it looks most interesting ... here are some thoughts:
> - your descriptions are for an independent external registry, while i 
> was proposing a "friends"-like services offered on the same 
> archive. as such, "title" would be a moot point, while you (rightly)
require it.

Yes, I don't think Andy was proposing a separate external service a la
JISC IESR (which I should add is still very much just at the pilot
stage!), but rather suggesting that the "service description" that might
be embedded in the OAI-PMH Identify response might be kept to a very
minimal DC-based record that included a pointer to richer details
provided using existing specs/standards.

I should add that (as an occasional but not terribly prompt or timely
adviser to the IESR project) I have an outstanding action against me to
explore some of the elements of that service description schema to see
whether some of the "proprietary" aspects might be represented using

> - your service identifiers are assigned by a central 
> authority - with a 
> self-description, that should not be necessary (and may even violate 
> some information independence principles)
> - you do not have a formal identifier for the protocol and i 
> think that is quite important to match clients and servers for
services. i was 
> suggesting the canonical URI of the protocol specification. 

Well, except in so far as they are drawn from the controlled list here


in which each of those values could be assigned a URI. But at the
moment, you're right, I don't think they are, and I agree it would be
better to use global "canonical" URIs for the protocols. Those URIs
might or might not be the URL of a human-readable spec though.

My memory of the WSDL specs is a bit hazy, but I think they use XML
QNames (rather than URIs) to identify/reference what they call

> if someone 
> comes up with a new CGI-based protocol, they SHOULD have a 
> specification written down somewhere, otherwise i don't see the point
> advertising the interface publicly.

I'd pretty much agree with that, I think.

> - WSDL is tricky. did you use the draft spec or the technical note? 
> there are encoding differences between the two, so until this 
> becomes a standard, i am keeping my distance.

Ah... not sure! I'd have to check! ;-)

Pete Johnston 
Research Officer (Interoperability)
UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK 
tel: +44 (0)1225 383619    fax: +44 (0)1225 386838