[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [search-ws] recordPacking: No Schema Change Required
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov] > > recordPacking=looselyPacked&httpAccept=application/xyz > >... > > I'm not opposed to adding this functionality. I just think that it stretches > the semantics of the recordPacking parameter too far. How about if we > introduce another parameter, call it 'recordFormatting'. I'm not sure that recordFormat is the right name. This is not about how records appear, but about the complete response. I suggest that we call it 'responseSchema'. Its semantic is that it names the content to be returned. A problem with the new responseSchema parm is that its potential values are constrained by the media-type that it is associated with. We're going to have to add a media-types section to Explain (necessary anyway) and within that, list the responseSchemas available. There will be an implicit default text/xml media-type with a default value of searchRetrieveResponse associated with SRU Explain records. <mediaTypeInfo> <mediaType value="application/json"> <responseSchema name="unpacked" identifier="http://nature.com/responseSchemas/unpacked"> <title>JSON with SRU record element data added</title> </responseSchema> </mediaType> </mediaTypeInfo> I'm not going to be horrified to discover that we need to add recordSchema as a sub-element of mediaType too. Ralph
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]