[OAI-implementers] Sets and multiple formats

[John Weatherley]

> However, since you use "annotations" as your example second format, the
> question may be whether your "annotations_for_oai_dc" is truly another
> metadata format (a different view of the same item, to use OAI-PMH parlance),
> or whether it's different content.

Yes, in this case the annotation_for_oai_dc records contain different, 
but related, content from the oai_dc records, not just a different 
view of the same content.

So, more specifically we have this:

An oai_dc record provides metadata about a given resource: 
http://nasa.gov/resource_123.html

and a related annotation_for_oai_dc record in the repository contains 
an annotation written by a different party for the same resource: 
http://nasa.gov/resource_123.html

As you point out, since these are two truly different formats, the 
protocol does not allow them to be harvested at the same time - you 
would have to harvest the records separately such as:

ListRecords?metadataPrefix=oai_dc&setSpec=oceans
ListRecords?metadataPrefix=annotation_for_oai_dc&setSpec=oceans


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: oai-implementers-bounces at openarchives.org
>> [mailto:oai-implementers-bounces at openarchives.org] On Behalf
>> Of John Weatherley
>> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:14 PM
>> To: oai-implementers at openarchives.org
>> Subject: [OAI-implementers] Sets and multiple formats
>>
>>
>>
>> We are reconsidering the way we define sets and the following
>> question
>> has come up: Does it make sense to define a set that includes records
>> from two fundamentally different metadata formats or is it better to
>> stick to one format per set?
>>
>> For example, suppose a repository contains the following metadata
>> formats:
>>
>> metadataPrefix=oai_dc
>> metadataPrefix=annotations_for_oai_dc
>>
>> Is it better to have a single set that includes records from both of
>> the above, such as:
>>
>> setSpec=records_and_annotations_about_oceans
>>
>> or better to split the sets by format:
>>
>> setSpec=records_about_oceans
>> setSpec=annotations_about_oceans
>>
>> Or is either approach equally OK?
>>
>> I'm curious what others have done in this regard and whether
>> there are
>> any conventions that have taken shape?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>   -john
>>
>>
>> PS:
>>
>> The OAI protocol defines sets in the following way:
>>
>> "The actual meaning of a set or of the arrangement of sets in
>> a repository is not defined in the protocol. It is expected
>> that individual communities may formulate well-defined set
>> configurations with perhaps a controlled vocabulary for
>> setNames and setSpec , and may even develop mechanisms for
>> exposing these to harvesters. For example, a group of
>> cooperating e-print archives in a specific discipline may
>> agree on sets that arrange metadata in their repositories
>> based on a controlled subject classification."
>>
>> I do not see any discussion in the documentation about the
>> singularity or multiplicity of metadata formats in respect to sets.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Weatherley
>> DLESE Program Center
>> University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)
>> PO Box 3000
>> Boulder, CO 80307-3000
>> jweather at ucar.edu (e-mail)
>>
>> (303) 497-2680 (tel)
>> (303) 497-8336 (fax)
>>
> http://www.dlese.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAI-implementers mailing list
> List information, archives, preferences and to unsubscribe:
> http://www.openarchives.org/mailman/listinfo/oai-implementers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAI-implementers mailing list
> List information, archives, preferences and to unsubscribe:
> http://www.openarchives.org/mailman/listinfo/oai-implementers
>
>