Re: [search-ws] items and groups

[Rob Sanderson <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk>]

On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 10:28 -0400, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
wrote:
> Rob - You suggest "startGroup", rather than "group". But then you say,
> no, the client does not indicate a number of groups.   And that the
> server returns only one group.

I was thinking to be consistent with startItem, but you're right, group
is better in that it can only return one group.
(as far as I understand groups (aka pages in opensearch))


> Next:   "The server may not accurately know the number of
> groups."   But we should still include the response parameter
> "numberOfGroups". So the idea is that the server includes it if it
> knows, and doesn't if it doesn't?

We should still include it in the model, certainly.  We might want to
consider making numberOfItems optional too. And potentially renaming
them to something more iso11179 friendly like itemCount and groupCount.

Rob