Attribute Architecture Issues
For Discussion at the June ZIG Meeting
Updated May 20, 1998
- What is the purpose of the new architecture? Is there a business case for this activity? Will the new
architecture be implemented by Z39.50 developers? Will the new attribute sets be supported by Z39.50 implementers?
What possibilities does the new attribute architecture open up, and what constraints does it impose?
- What specific attribute sets would be immediately useful?
- What degree of modularity should be assumed in the development of attribute sets? What is the interrelationship among attribute sets?
- How is the universe of attribute sets to be partitioned: e.g.
- a cross-domain set (use attributes);
- protocol attribute set(s), e.g., for Explain, Extended Services;
- a mechanical attribute set (non-use attributes);
- domain-specific (or application specific).
- What is the role of Dublin Core? Will it be superceded by the cross-domain set, and if not, is
Dublin Core intended for cross-domain searching; and if not, what is it intended for?
- Are there requirements for backwards compatibility with version 2 (one attribute set per query)? Should the
architecture allow for a virtual single attribute set?
- Should support for Explain be an assumption in attribute set development?
- Specific architectural questions:
- Should nesting be permitted for Use attributes?
- Should specification of occurrence should be permitted for Use attributes?
- Is anchoring sufficiently specified?
- Is the rule (section 3.1.2 of attribute architecture document) that a class 1 attribute set
may not define any attribute types not defined for class 1 overly restrictive?
- Domain-Specific attribute sets:
- What kinds of problems does the existence of domain-specific attribute sets cause? Are there
interoperability problems that would not exist otherwise? Can these problems be solved?
- Can domain-specific attribute sets be partitioned so that there is no overlap among them? Should overlap be
permitted or discouraged?
- Should there be interdisciplinary domain-specific attribute set?
- What should be the level of specificity (precision) or generality of the domain-specific attribute sets?
- Who should sponsor domain-specific sets? Who should develop them?
- Should there be registration procedures for domain-specific sets?
- Bibliographic domain:
- Is there a bibliographic domain? What does it encompass?
- Where should the bibliographic domain-specific attribute set be developed and maintained?
- How can international involvement with the development be assured?
- Should there be a "MARC" attribute set?
- Should there be a bib-2 attribute set?
- What will be the on-going role of the bib-1 attribute set?
- What are the role and status of the bib-1 semantics document?
- Administrative and political considerations:
- How can future work on these issues be international in scope?
- Who will take responsibility for seeing that guidelines and best practices for attribute set developers get created and disseminated?
- Who has the standing for speaking for a domain or application area?
- Who should define the scope of the non-domain-specific attribute sets? Who should develop the sets?
- How do we ensure coordinated development among these different communities ?
- Should any or all attribute sets become official standards, and under what structure?
- Are Z39.50 attribute sets just for Z39.50, or can they be useful in other contexts?
- Can work on attribute sets proceed in the absence of work on the type-1 query?
- Should connotation-free attribute set names be created?