Message-Id: <199602011817.MAA15916@library.wustl.edu> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 16:10:14 +0000 From: R M Heery <mailto:lisrmh@BATH.AC.UK> Subject: Re: Re[2]: yet another charter revision To: Multiple recipients of list WEBCAT-L <mailto:WEBCAT-L@WUVMD.WUSTL.EDU>
On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Martin Hamilton wrote: >
> 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.
And if that is so, would it be helpful to remove the words bibliographic control records (and all that implies) from the first sentence of the URC charter? and leave 'configuration control records' ....
Rachel ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Heery ROADS Research Officer UKOLN (UK Office of Library and Info Networking) tel: +44 (0)1225 826724 University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK fax: +44 (0)1225 826838