Matthew Dovey wrote:
> A directory service is really just a database of resources. Most of the
> internet discussion of directory services are currently limited to
> directories of users (for authentification and personalisation, cf. user
> profiles, reasons) or of low level services (cf how the current e-mail
> systems locate the appropriate recipient server).
Could you tell us please where these discussions are taking place? Thanks
> However both a
> database of catalogue level descriptions and a bibliographic database
> are stricly speaking directories. The only problem is that the protocols
> traditionally associated with directory services (e.g. LDAP etc.) are
> syntactically different from those used for bibliographic and catalogue
> level descriptions databases (which are heavily based on say Z39.50).
> The protocols are not however that far apart functionally.
>
> The use of RDF and XML based standards in the catalogue level
> descriptions may make this gap smaller.
I've seen a number of statements like this one and I must confess I'm
puzzled. Z39.50 and LDAP are essentially communication protocols. RDF/XML,
MARC, X.509 etc are basically document standards. While I can see
advantages in moving towards RDF and XML, I can't see they make any
difference to the gaps between Z39.50 and LDAP (or even whois++).
--
Chris Rusbridge
Programme Director, Electronic Libraries Programme
The Library, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
Phone 01203 524979 Fax 01203 524981
Email [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|