Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Approved-By: Sebastian Hammer <quinn@INDEXDATA.DK>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20000111121855.030202c0@bagel.indexdata.dk>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:29:24 +0100
Reply-To: "Z39.50 Implementors Workshop" <Z3950IW@LISTS.UFL.EDU>
Sender: "Z39.50 Implementors Workshop" <Z3950IW@LISTS.UFL.EDU>
From: Sebastian Hammer <quinn@indexdata.dk>
Subject: Agenda item proposal
To: Z3950IW@LISTS.UFL.EDU
In-Reply-To: <91C02F76882CD2119EAE00805F851D85A226AF@mailhost>
Status:

Ray, others,

There are profiles around now, and others to come, which suggest XML as
their primary record syntax - at least for some purposes. Since there is
considerable overlap between XML and GRS-1 for simple applications, it
seems to me that the ZIG should try to find a common position. GRS-1 has so
far been viewed, at least by some, as the default syntax for structured
data other than MARC records. Should this also be the case in the future?

It seems fairly definite that XML will play a role in all of our lives. If
we don't form an opinion on this issue as a group, then the decisions will
be taken for us by individual profile authors and implementors. This could
be harmful to future interoperability.

I would like to propose that we have a discussion in San Antonio about the
respective roles of GRS-1 and XML in the future. The outcome might be
anything from a decision that I am stupid to bring this up, to a
clarification of the ways in which the two syntaxes may complement
eachother, a decision to deprecate GRS-1, or a proposal to the w3c that
they deprecate XML.

All the best,

--Sebastian
--
Sebastian Hammer        <quinn@indexdata.dk>            Index Data ApS
Ph.: +45 3536 3672    <http://www.indexdata.dk>    Fax: +45 3536 0449