OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

search-ws message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [search-ws] OASIS/SRU: ATOM/SRU Response Schema


Please see comments inline below..

My feeling is that we need to narrow the options down some more rather 
than just sending an enumeration of every combination.
I can live with the email as drafted if necessary.

Thanks Ray.

Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
...
> There are variations to this proposal, for example both formats could be
> mandatory. Or an implementation would have to support at least one but not
> both (on the theory that if a client supports one and server the other, then
> they probably weren't meant to interoperate).
>
> So the possibilities are:
> 1. ATOM mandatory, SRU optional.
>   

Suggest replacing above with:

"1. ATOM mandatory, SRU optional and marked as deprecated. This indicates that a future version of SRU will likely drop support for it."


> 2. Support for both formats mandatory.
> 3. Support for the SRU format mandatory,  ATOM optional.
> 4. Must support at least one of the two, SRUor ATOM. (The explain record
> would indicate what formats are supported.)
> 5. No mandatory response format. (Explain.)
>   

Above is really quite unworkable for interop. Suggest dropping it if 
possible.

> 6. Server must support both SRU and ATOM, and client at least one.
>   
Above is really redundant with (2). Also this spec should not make any 
demands on the client other than it should be designed to work the SRU 
interface.

> 7. Client must support both SRU and ATOM, and server at least one.
> (Explain.)
>   

IMHO, above does not make sense to include. Also this spec should not 
make any demands on the client other than it should be designed to work 
the SRU interface.

> Note that there is a new request parameter proposed, 'responseFormat', so
> the client can indicate which format it wants.
>
> In any case, a "flavor" of ATOM would be specified in the standard which
> would call out (namespaced) elements similar to those in the current SRU
> schema -- globally: <version>, <numberOfRecords>; and per record:
> <recordSchema>, <recordPacking>, <recordPosition>.   So the full
> functionality of the SRU response schema can be provided.
>
> The TC solicits ideas from SRU implementors on this issue.
>   


-- 
Regards,
Farrukh Najmi

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]