Subject: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:47:40 -0500

I am actually rather shocked that it seems that MARC-XML, MODS, 
MARC21-binary, do not have registered Internet Content Types (aka MIME 
types).

Am I missing something, or is this really so?

Anyone know what the process is for registering such?  Anyone want to 
help try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards 
organizations for each of those types, rather than doing it independently?

Jonathan

---

From: Ethan Gruber <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:52:39 -0500

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the mime type for MARC-XML and MODS be
application/xml, like every other xml file?  As for MARC-binary, I can't
say.  I don't have any of those files handy.

Ethan

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Anyone know what the process is for registering such?  Anyone want to help
> try to do that? I guess we'd probably have to talk to the standards

---

From: "Mark A. Matienzo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:53:03 -0500

MARC21 binary has a content-type of application/marc - see
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2220.html.

--
Mark A. Matienzo
Applications Developer, Digital Experience Group
The New York Public Library

---

From: Patrick Yott <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:55:33 -0500

Not sure about the binary MARC, but all flavors of xml should be typed to
either text/xml or application/xml, yes?

patrick

---

From: Ross Singer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:57:10 -0500

His point, though, is that you can't tell the format being used until
you open the document and try to negotiate it that way.

So if you think in terms of content-negotiation and a particular
resource is available in EAD, MARC XML and Dubin Core, you have no way
of expressing that.

Jonathan, this has come up before.  Ed Summers and I kicked around the
idea of registering these but never got anywhere (mainly because
neither one of us was really interested in writing the RFCs).  Clay
Redding might be doing something, as I recall...

-Ross.

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:59:12 -0500

You CAN use application/xml for any XML, but it's often useful to have a 
specific type for your specific content, so the user-agent can know what 
to do with it.  The convention is to include "+xml" on the end, so if 
the user agent doens't know your specific format, it can fall back to 
treating it as generic XML.

For instance:

application/rss+xml
application/atom+xml
application/rdf+xml

And dozens more you can see at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/   (search for 
"+xml").

Thanks to Mark and Ross Singer for pointing out application/marc already 
exists. (and is on that list above).  Awesome.

I'm still feeling the need for application/marc+xml, and 
application/mods+xml

Jonathan

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:01:09 -0500

If anyone does want to work on it, I'd be happy to help. Maybe I'll 
contact clay.

The most immediate and clear need I see is for application/marc+xml and 
application/mods. 

MADS could be useful, I dunno. Not sure if a seperate one would be 
needed for MFHD?

With all the effort on making web-friendly APIs for library 
bibliographic control systems (DLF task force, jangle, etc.), having 
MIME types for these formats will make everything flow much more 
smoothly and clearly.

Of course, even without them being registered, we can use 
application/x-marc+xml and application/x-mods right away, which is 
probably what I'll do.

Jonathan

---

From: "Smith,Devon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:01:02 -0500

Rather than defining new media types, I was thinking it would make more sense to add a "schema" and/or "namespace" parameter to text/xml or application/xml. Then you could use those types and append the parameter to indicate the specific structure of the content.

Just a though,
Devon

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Wed 2/4/2009 11:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?

Jonathan

---

From: Ross Singer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:10:46 -0500

Well, except this isn't legal.  Parameters are defined by the RFC, so
you can't just pass arbitrary data with any request.

I had this same idea for embedding other content types within Atom
feeds, but... no go.

-Ross.

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:11:01 -0500

That would make sense if you want to actually change the HTTP/web 
standards and establish new conventions. :)

Me, I don't need to fix the internet right now.  The application/foo+xml 
convention is pretty well established, and even specified in 
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt  (thanks anarchivist!).

It will work good enough for many purposes, as it does for 
application/rss+xml etc.  But yeah, this +xml convention it's not as 
flexible as you might like, it can't handle everything in the web/xml 
world, but fixing that means changing/fixing/establishing new 
standards/conventions, and, for the moment, that's 'out of my pay 
grade', just getting application/mods+xml and application/marc+xml 
registered would be good enough, and in keeping with that RFC and 
currently accepted conventions.

Jonathan

---

From: Karen Coyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:31:57 -0800

I thought that a type had been defined - thanks, Mark.

Looking at it, it's from 1997 and represents the LC MARC standard at 
that time (it says: "harmonized USMARC/CANMARC specification", whatever 
that is.)

This brings up the usual question of what we mean by MARC -- the 
structure or the content -- and the fact that we don't have any 
versioning in place for the many changes that the MARC content has gone 
through. If nothing else, using this for MARC 'binary' would get you 
started. But it doesn't give you something you could use for other MARC 
binaries, like Unimarc.

BTW, it also doesn't distinguish between bibliographic, authority, etc. 
MARC record types, since that info is in the Leader. That's what it says.

kc

-- 
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[email-masked] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------

---

From: "Smith,Devon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:33:07 -0500

Sure, I know. I wasn't very clear.
I meant that instead of going to IANA to get new media types, he should go to IETF to publish a new RFC with the new parameters.
I don't know how each approach compares in terms of time and hassle, but the IETF approach looks like it would have /much/ broader value.
But whatever.
/dev

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Ross Singer
Sent: Wed 2/4/2009 12:10 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MIME Type for MARC, Mods, etc.?

-Ross.