RE: [search-ws] recordPacking (Reprise)

["LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>]

I think we're at an impasse here.

I think that what Tony wants to do would not be implemented in the way
he wants by anyone else.  I'd use the responseSchema parameter.  Having
said that, he can use whatever non-standard values he wants for the
recordPacking parameter and apply whatever semantics he wants.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hammond, Tony [mailto:t.hammond@nature.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:44 AM
> To: LeVan,Ralph; Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress; OASIS SWS TC
> Subject: Re: [search-ws] recordPacking (Reprise)
> 
> Hi Ralph:
> 
> > Why not just do this for all your JSON responses and drop the
unpacked
> > idea entirely?  We're not dictating what you stick in your JSON.
> 
> I really do believe that the extension formats ought to be able to
mirror
> the standard (canonical) response as far as possible. That is, there
should
> be a version of record in each media type that corresponds reasonably
> closely to the SRU/XML.
> 
> Having said that, for *practical purposes alone* there could be a more
> streamlined delivery which unpacks the data for the client
application. This
> does not seem to be an unreasonable approach. The OpenSearch formats
are
> by
> nature looser organizations and admit of novel handling.
> 
> Because this is a new concept (record data packing) does not mean that
it is
> without merit. We find it to be very useful.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 31/3/10 15:04, "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org> wrote:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Hammond, Tony [mailto:t.hammond@nature.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 4:51 AM
> >> To: LeVan,Ralph; Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress; OASIS SWS TC
> >> Subject: Re: [search-ws] recordPacking (Reprise)
> >>
> >> OK - maybe there's a way out of this impasse.
> >>
> >> The way we have been using the "unpacked" format is to float the
> > properties
> >> to the toplevel enclosing item which is where any OpenSearch type
> > format
> >> would reasonably expect to find them. (I used the unpacked form to
> > maintain
> >> fidelity with the XML schema.)
> >
> > Why not just do this for all your JSON responses and drop the
unpacked
> > idea entirely?  We're not dictating what you stick in your JSON.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> 
> 
>
************************************************************************
********
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by
anyone who
> is
> not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error
> please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other
storage
> mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
accept
> liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own
and not
> expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its
agents.
> Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its
agents
> accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this
e-mail or
> its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
> attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of
Macmillan
> Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication.
Macmillan
> Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered
number
> 785998
> Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
>
************************************************************************
********
>