[OAI-implementers] points to ponder

Naomi Dushay Naomi@cs.cornell.edu
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.

- Naomi

-----Original Message-----
From: Jewel Ward [mailto:jewelw@lanl.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:03 PM
To: OAI-implementers
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
Research Library
(505) 664-0368

OAI-implementers mailing list
List information, archives, preferences and to unsubscribe: