[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [search-ws] recordPacking (Reprise)
If the rule is that for a given mime type there is a default response type, this seems to me to be a reasonable approach and a basis to reach an agreement on all of this. What seems to be complicating this is the suggestion that there be an additional parameter value, "unpacked", so that if you specify json as the mime type, and use the default response type, then you can also say "unpacked" to get a variation of this response type. I think this is an un-necessary complication and that there should be a separate response type. If you plan to use the unpacked variation most (or all) of the time, make that your default, and then define another response type to cover the non-unpacked variation. --Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org> To: "Hammond, Tony" <t.hammond@nature.com>; "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>; "OASIS SWS TC" <search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:51 AM Subject: RE: [search-ws] recordPacking (Reprise) 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 > ************************************************************************ ******** >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]