Re: [search-ws-comment] SRU 2.0 Draft Feedback

["Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>]

Thanks, Tony.    I think you should post these comments also to the SRU 
list.   That may help generate some discussion.   You could say that you 
have recently joined the Committee but these comments represent your 
pre-membership perspective.

(I'll be away  on vacation for a week so you won't hear much from me for 
awhile.)

--Ray

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hammond, Tony" <t.hammond@nature.com>
To: <search-ws-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:54 AM
Subject: [search-ws-comment] SRU 2.0 Draft Feedback


> Hi:
>
> Here's some initial feedback on the SRU 2.0 Draft.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tony
>
>
> #####
>
> 1. Parameters / Elements
>
> I think it would help to break out Request Parameters from Response 
> Elements
> in Sects. 4, 6 and 7. The two sets are largely disjoint. (Same remark
> applies to the Abstract Protocol Definition.)
>
> Also might help to break out discussion of Facets into separate section 
> (as
> Diagnostics and Extensions), especially since Facets is an optional 
> feature.
> I also think that Search Result Analysis is sufficiently specialized to
> warrant its own section.
>
> Sect. 5 seems to be misplaced coming as it does in between Sect. 4 and
> Sects. 6 and 7.
>
>
> 2. Parameter / Element Ordering
>
> Not clear what the basis is for the orderings given in Sect. 2 (Table 1) 
> and
> 3 (Table 6). Is it a logical ordering?
>
> I note that "echoedSearchRetrieveRequest" is differently located (at 
> bottom)
> from its location in the 1.* XSD schema. Is that intentional?
>
> <xsd:complexType name="searchRetrieveResponseType">
>   ...
>        <xsd:sequence>
>          ...
>         <xsd:element ref="echoedSearchRetrieveRequest" minOccurs="0"/>
>         <xsd:element ref="diagnostics" minOccurs="0"/>
>         <xsd:element ref="extraResponseData" minOccurs="0"/>
>        </xsd:sequence>
>      ...
> </xsd:complexType>
>
> Also note that ordering is different in the tables and in Sect. 4.
>
>
> 3. Response Elements
>
> Response elements are given for a specific serialization - XML.
>
> Is that what is intended by binding? I would have thought binding would be
> to a specific data model (e.g. SRU) which can then be serialized various
> ways: native XML, ATOM, RSS, JSON, etc.
>
> Thus don't see relevance of the angle brackets in Table 6. (And that does
> also have a bearing on the type constraints that are offered if the 
> elements
> are not only XML.)
>
> Also, heading in Sect. 3.1 is to "Actual Reponse Elements ..." and should 
> be
> "Reponse Elements ..." only. (Cf  Sect. 2.1 which is to "Request 
> Parameters
> ..." alone.)
>
>
> 4. Response Elements: "resultSetIdentifier", "timeToLive", "idleTime"
>
> Mentioned in Sect 2, 3 and 4.10 the element "resultSetIdentifier" should 
> be
> "resultSetId" everywhere.
>
> And in Sect 3, "timeToLive" and "idleTime" should be "resultSetTTL" and
> "resultSetIdleTime", respectively.
>
>
> 5. Response Elements: "diagnostics"
>
> Probably don't need the "(non-surrogate)" in the name value field. Perhaps
> this could be footnoted in the table?
>
>
> 6. Request Parameters: "httpAccept-*"
>
> I think these params are incorrectly named and should follow the standard
> camelcase style used elsewhere. e.g.
>
> Accept-Charset:             httpAccept-charset -> httpAcceptCharset
> Accept-Encoding:             httpAccept-encoding -> httpAcceptEncoding
> Accept-Language:             httpAccept-language -> httpAcceptLanguage
> Accept-Ranges:             httpAccept-ranges -> httpAcceptRanges
>
> Even though they mimic the HTTP headers they break naming convention.
>
>
> 7. Request Parameters: "rendering"
>
> This is just a query. I wonder if the terms "client" / "server" would be
> more appropriate than "local" / "remote". It might be more correct to talk
> about "local" / "remote" but I always end up having to do a double take to
> figure out my relative position.
>
>
> 8. Request Parameters: recordSchema, sortKeys/sortSchema
>
> Both "recordSchema" and "SortKeys/sortSchema" allow for short names to be
> used in place of URIs. But the SRU registered short names [1] are not
> unique. E.g. "mods" is mapped to four different XML schema (3.0, 3.1, 3.2,
> 3.3) and likewise "pam" is ampped to two different XML schema (2.0, 2.1).
>
> Also in Sect. 4.7.1 it says under sortSchema "the URI for an XML schema".
> What is meant though is the "short name" for an XML schema, which is a
> placeholder for the URI. And that is shown in the examples but needs 
> better
> explanation.
>
> Still, the short name to URI mapping problem remains.
>
> [1] http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/resources/schemas.html
>
>
> 9. Response ID
>
> There is no ID returned in the response. If there are records then a
> "resultSetId" is returned but not otherwise. Some serializations (e.g. 
> ATOM)
> require an ID (actually a URI) for the response. One strategy would be to
> use the "resulSetId" as the basis for a unique ID, but this fails when no
> records are returned and a response is still required to carry the
> diagnostics.
>
> Is there some other place to return a unique response ID?
>
>
> 10. Endpoints
>
> I would have preferred to see the "operation" parameter maintained so that
> "searchRetrieve" and "scan" could both be located on the same endpoint, 
> and
> an explicit choice be made between them. Heuristics could be applied but I
> think this is an unnecessary shorthand and may only lead to problems down
> the line. I would have made this parameter optional at the least.
>
> As regards version agree that it could be dispensed with although don;t 
> see
> any real harm in allowing for an optional parameter. Definitely not a
> required parameter.
>
>
> 11. Typos, etc
>
> a) Sects 2 and 3 (Tables 1 and 6)
>
> Suggest that all categories which are not strict parameter names (e.g.
> "Facet parameters", "Extension parameters", "Extension", etc.) be set in
> italics to differentiate from actual parameter names.
>
> And some tidying up of punctuation etc., e.g. No periods on "Reference" /
> "Restrictions" columns (which by the way should both be the same head e.g.
> "Reference"?). And perhaps "see" instead of "See", and "optionsl" nstead 
> of
> "Optional".
>
> b) 4.7.1 "Sort Sub Parameters" and "sub parameters" in text
>
> Preferably "sub-parameter" or "subparameter".
>
> c) 4.7.2 "Textual Representation of sortKeys Parameter"
>
> Maybe should just be something like "Represention of sortKeys Parameter
> Value". Don't need the "Textual", and this is the parameter *value*, not 
> the
> parameter we're talking about.
>
> d) 4.9.1
>
> Should everywhere be "HTTP Accept header" (lowercase "header"), and
> "Content-Location" (capitalized).
>
> #####
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ********************************************************************************
> 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
> ********************************************************************************
>
>
> --
> This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
> OASIS Search Web Services TC.
>
> In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
> to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
> before posting.
>
> Subscribe: search-ws-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> Unsubscribe: search-ws-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> List help: search-ws-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/search-ws-comment/
> Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
> Committee: 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=search-ws
> Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/
>