Well the problem as I see it is this. I don't think it would be proper to include cql diagnostics in a normative part of the sru spec. Currently, the list of diagnostics is normative. We could change that to non-normative. Or we could list normative and non-normative diagnostics separately - in normative and non-normative sections respectively (of course, cql diagnostics would be normative within the cql spec). What do you suggest? I am somewhat reluctant to make first class sru diagnostics non-normative. But only somewhat. --Ray From: Hammond, Tony [mailto:t.hammond@nature.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 11:05 AM To: Denenberg, Ray; search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [search-ws] SRU Diagnostics: Annex C From a developer point of view I don't think this is very helpful. We need a consolidated set of diagnostic responses which is generataed by and received from the *SRU* application.
To repeat the CQL-subset in the CQL document would be a handy reference but we should not allow the definitive list to be fragmented.
Is my 2 cents.
Tony
-----Original Message----- From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov] Sent: Mon 11/29/2010 3:13 PM To: Hammond, Tony; search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [search-ws] SRU Diagnostics: Annex C
Here is what I think we should do (and I think we discussed this a while back and decided to do this):
change in SRU "Diagnostics 10-49 reserved for CQL" simply to "Diagnostics 10-49 reserved" . And in CQL add an annex that lists CQL diagnostics.
--Ray
From: Hammond, Tony [mailto:t.hammond@nature.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 7:32 AM To: search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [search-ws] SRU Diagnostics: Annex C
Hi:
We have a normative Annex C in SRU 2.0 draft which says this:
"Diagnostics 10-49 reserved for CQL"
Doesn't help me much. I had to root around in Java code till I found the list I needed. (And yes, I should have gotten this from the SRU diagnostics registry. Some reason I thought I had looked there - but obviously hadn't.)
So, I guess we should have a *complete* listing of *all* SRU diagnostic codes in the SRU draft itself. (The annex is normative, after all.) And I wonder if we shouldn't also include unassigned numbers within the sequence, e.g. #9, #75-79, etc., for general accountability.
:)
Cheers,
Tony
**************************************************************************** **** 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 **************************************************************************** **** |