Ross Singer wrote:
Agreed. The same is true, of course, of MARC and, by extension,
MARCXML. Part of the "format" is that it can be one record or
multiple. I don't think this a particularly strong argument against
using the namespace as an identifier.
Actually, the MARC format (not MARCXM
Apologies for any cross-postings.
North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries is pleased to
announce a new position opening for a Digital Technologies Development
Librarian. This position is based in Raleigh, NC. The full
announcement and more information is located at:
htt
PS: If you do need to request a new API key, I reccommend when
describing the purpose of your use, you make sure to emphasize adding
links to Amazon to library pages. Which shouldn't be a lie, if you are
indeed doing that. I consider adding such a link a reasonable 'cost' of
using the API for i
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Tim Spalding wrote:
> I think it's a terrible mistake for them. Their marginal cost is zero;
> they don't need to do this.
Their marginal cost may be quite low, but I'm fairly sure it's not
zero. Cycles, storage, and bandwidth aren't free.
Amazon has never struc
In fact, I believe that library-sector developers have asked Amazon and
been told that their use is allowed. But definitely, there's no
guarantee this will always continue be true. The terms of use don't seem
to have substantially changed to me, but they could always start
enforcing them more s
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 19:34, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> In the real world, we use things when they solve the problem in front of us
> in as easy a way as possible
And somehow you're suggesting that I don't live in the real-world? :)
Good try, but as far as I've experienced, people in the librar
They're also tightened up the API in various ways, and renamed it the
"Amazon.com Product Advertising API." Although I know of no case when
Amazon has shut down a library, it would be hard for any to claim
their site had "as their principal purpose advertising and marketing
the Amazon Site and driv
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Jakob Voss wrote:
>> 2) require some laborious and lengthy submission and review process to
>> just say "hey, here's my FOAF available via UnAPI"
>
> The identifier for FOAF is http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/. Forget about
> identifiers that are not URIs. OAI-PMH at lea
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 14:53 +0100, Jakob Voss wrote:
> >> A format should be described with a schema (XML Schema, OWL etc.) or at
> >> least a standard. Mostly this schema already has a namespace or similar
> >> identifier that can be used for the whole format.
> >
> > This is unfortunately not
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Jakob Voss wrote:
> That's your interpretation. According to the schema, the MODS format *is*
> either a single mods-element or a modsCollection-element. That's exactely
> what you can refer to with the namespace identifier
> http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3.
Agreed.
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
Yeah, don't use MODS in general; it's a hack. It's even crazier still
that many versions have the same namespace. What were they thinking?!
Um, MODS is awfully useful for a bunch of reasons. I'm not going to stop
using it because they've used namespaces in a way
Hi Rob,
You wrote:
A format should be described with a schema (XML Schema, OWL etc.) or at
least a standard. Mostly this schema already has a namespace or similar
identifier that can be used for the whole format.
This is unfortunately not the case.
It is mostly the case - but people like t
The Amazon products API keeps changing it's name, and has just been
changed to Amazon "Product Advertising API" -- it's the one you use to
look up books in Amazon and get metadata for them, though.
It looks from an email I got from Amazon that ss of August 15th, you'll
need to cryptographicall
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 12:02 +0100, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 16:04, Rob Sanderson wrote:
> > * One namespace is used to define two _totally_ separate sets of
> > elements. There's no reason why this can't be done.
>
> As opposed to all the reasons for not doing it. :)
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 16:04, Rob Sanderson wrote:
> * One namespace is used to define two _totally_ separate sets of
> elements. There's no reason why this can't be done.
As opposed to all the reasons for not doing it. :) This is crap design
of a higher magnitude, and the designers should be e
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 11:31 +0100, Jakob Voss wrote
> A format should be described with a schema (XML Schema, OWL etc.) or at
> least a standard. Mostly this schema already has a namespace or similar
> identifier that can be used for the whole format.
This is unfortunately not the case.
> For
Hi,
I summarized my thoughts about identifiers for data formats in a blog
posting: http://jakoblog.de/2009/05/10/who-identifies-the-identifiers/
In short it’s not a technology issue but a commitment issue and the
problem of identifying the right identifiers for data formats can be
reduced to
17 matches
Mail list logo
