Message-Id: <199602011541.JAA06251@library.wustl.edu> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 15:30:04 +0000 From: Martin Hamilton <mailto:martin@MRRL.LUT.AC.UK> Subject: Re: Re[2]: yet another charter revision To: Multiple recipients of list WEBCAT-L <mailto:WEBCAT-L@WUVMD.WUSTL.EDU>
Heath Rezabek writes:| Not necessarily, imho. Used as a hypothetical example, the Dublin Core
| seems to have been designed as a loose framework whose elements could be
| translated into richer MARC format, but at the same time could
| accommodate other elements -- elements relevant perhaps only to automated
| systems reading the DC records. I'd imagine TEI is designed with the same
| sorts of portabilities in mind.
Yeah, but the context is very important -
With URCs we ideally want something which is compact, unambiguous, and easy to parse. It may be that the info actually travelling down the wire is a subset of some larger set of attributes taken from a catalogue record. And, the on-the-wire encoding of the URC may not bear any resemblance to the format the catalogue record is held in.
How these back ends work should be up to whoever writes the code to implement them... :-)
The critical thing is that two programs which want to exchange URC information can do so via a common protocol.
Toodle pip!
Martin