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] sru:recordPacking = unpacked ?


Tony - I'm lost from the start (and I've tried to read the whole thread). 
What am I missing?  You want to elevate record data above the record data 
wrapper, but then how would the receiver distinguish one record's data from 
another?    This all might make sense if you assume the response has only 
one record but not if there is more than one.

--Ray


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hammond, Tony" <t.hammond@nature.com>
To: <search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: "Hammond, Tony" <t.hammond@nature.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:56 AM
Subject: [search-ws] sru:recordPacking = unpacked ?


> Hi:
>
> I have a requirement for handling SRU record data to make it accessible
> within an OpenSearch context. Essentially I need to "unpack" the record
> data.
>
> To explain this scenario I will use the example "Atom extension for SRU"
> format [1] which is posted on the TC site.
>
> This is a good start to the item level SRU mapping. So, for a result set
> delivered in the "srw_dc" schema I might have something like:
>
> <title>
> <link>
> <sru:recordSchema>...</sru:recordSchema>
> <sru:recordPacking>...</sru:recordPacking>
> <sru:recordData>
>  <srw_dc>
>    <dc:title>
>    <dc:creator>
> </srw_dc>
> </sru:recordData>
> <sru:recordPosition>...</sru:recordPosition>
>
> This is good from an SRU point of view but not so good from an OpenSearch
> point of view as the search response elements ("dc:title", "dc:author") 
> are
> buried two levels down in the element hierarchy.
>
> And this is significantly worse in my own use case of PAM, or PRISM
> Aggregator Message, where there are two more wrapper elements intervening.
> So I would have this:
>
> <sru:recordData>
>  <pam:message>
>    <pam:article>
>      <xhtml:header>
>        <dc:title>
>        <dc:creator>
>     </xhtml:header>
>   </pam:article>
> </ pam:message>
> </sru:recordData>
>
>>From an OpenSearch point of view what I really need is this:
>
> <title>
> <link>
> <dc:title>
> <dc:creator>
> <sru:recordSchema>...</sru:recordSchema>
> <sru:recordPacking>...</sru:recordPacking>
> <sru:recordData/>
> <sru:recordPosition>...</sru:recordPosition>
>
> That is, I need something akin to an "unpacked" option, so that my search
> response elements are immediately available at the toplevel and not buried
> within a hierarchy. The reason for this is not so much technical (although
> it is that too) but is to do with mindshare. If it's too hard nobody will
> bother and SRU is the loser. (SRU must accommodate OpenSearch, not the 
> other
> way round.)
>
> Note that we already have the request parameter "recordPacking" which 
> takes
> two values "xml" and "string". (And frankly, not doing very much IMHO. 
> Badly
> formed XML is already something outside of the SRU conventions - schema 
> then
> amounts for nothing.)
>
> (I believe this is the right parameter to focus on rather than introduce a
> new parameter, e.g. "recordDataPacking".)
>
> I wonder if it would be possible to either a) overload this parameter, or 
> b)
> substitute the application of this parameter, so that the following cases
> could be requested:
>
>    a) recordPacking = packed
>
>    b) recordPacking = flattened
>
>    c) recordPacking = unpacked
>
> The first case a) would be the standard SRU offering, the second case 
> would
> allow for properties to bubble up to the <recordData> container element, 
> and
> the third case c) would allow for properties to escape the SRU response
> entirely and be directly available to the host format (e.g. Atom in this
> example).
>
> Note that the "unpacked" option would not apply to native SRU response XML
> which has nowhere to put this data - there is no "outside".
>
> Note also that the "flattened" option may be too much to think about. It 
> is
> a logical possibility but may just complicate matters.
>
> So, the three cases could look as folows:
>
> a) recordPacking = packed
>
> <title>
> <link>
> <sru:recordSchema>...</sru:recordSchema>
> <sru:recordPacking>...</sru:recordPacking>
> <sru:recordData>
>  <srw_dc>
>    <dc:title>
>    <dc:creator>
> </srw_dc>
> </sru:recordData>
> <sru:recordPosition>...</sru:recordPosition>
>
>
> b) recordPacking = flattened
>
> title>
> <link>
> <sru:recordSchema>...</sru:recordSchema>
> <sru:recordPacking>...</sru:recordPacking>
> <sru:recordData>
>  <dc:title>
>  <dc:creator>
> </sru:recordData>
> <sru:recordPosition>...</sru:recordPosition>
>
> c) recordPacking = unpacked
>
> <title>
> <link>
> <dc:title>
> <dc:creator>
> <sru:recordSchema>...</sru:recordSchema>
> <sru:recordPacking>...</sru:recordPacking>
> <sru:recordData/>
> <sru:recordPosition>...</sru:recordPosition>
>
>
> Of course, we still have the existing values for "recordPacking" which, if
> required still, could be accommodated by adopting a value list strategy,
> similar to "sortKeys", e.g. we could have
>
>    * recordPacking = xml
>
>    * recordPacking = xml, packed
>
>    * recordPacking = xml, flattened
>
>    * recordPacking = xml, unpacked
>
> and same for "string".
>
> It could be argued that an "unpacked" record data is no longer a valid SRU
> response, but I would counter that not all responses have recoprd data, 
> e.g.
> where diagnostics are provided. Also, even in an "unpacked" scenario with 
> an
> empty "recordData" element (or missing element) we have said something 
> about
> the data: that is was there but has been processed ("unpacked").
>
> I would like to hear some responses to this proposal as I will very 
> shortly
> have to go ahead and implement search responses for the service we are 
> about
> to release. I would like to be as fully SRU compatible as possible but 
> also
> making it a breeze for OpenSearch users. I believe that the current 
> proposal
> (or something very much like it) would allow for both perspectives to be
> maintained.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tony
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/33408/atom-extension-for-s
> ru.xml
> [2]
> http://www.crossref.org/CrossTech/2009/07/opensearch_formats_for_review.html
>
>
> ********************************************************************************
> 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
> ********************************************************************************
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> 



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