[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [search-ws] recordPacking (Reprise)
> said that, he can use whatever non-standard values he wants for the Then just what is the point of Annex E?! The wording there says very clearly that for each media type there is a corresponding *default* response type! == The default extension format for an ATOM response as outlined in the example below is designated by the URI: o info:srw/1/response-type/atom == The only thing amiss is that this default type is illustraated by example than defined by schema. I am not the one using non-standard schemas!! Tony On 31/3/10 15:51, "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org> wrote: > I think we're at an impasse here. > > I think that what Tony wants to do would not be implemented in the way > he wants by anyone else. I'd use the responseSchema parameter. Having > said that, he can use whatever non-standard values he wants for the > recordPacking parameter and apply whatever semantics he wants. > > Ralph > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hammond, Tony [mailto:t.hammond@nature.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:44 AM >> To: LeVan,Ralph; Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress; OASIS SWS TC >> Subject: Re: [search-ws] recordPacking (Reprise) >> >> Hi Ralph: >> >>> Why not just do this for all your JSON responses and drop the > unpacked >>> idea entirely? We're not dictating what you stick in your JSON. >> >> I really do believe that the extension formats ought to be able to > mirror >> the standard (canonical) response as far as possible. That is, there > should >> be a version of record in each media type that corresponds reasonably >> closely to the SRU/XML. >> >> Having said that, for *practical purposes alone* there could be a more >> streamlined delivery which unpacks the data for the client > application. This >> does not seem to be an unreasonable approach. The OpenSearch formats > are >> by >> nature looser organizations and admit of novel handling. >> >> Because this is a new concept (record data packing) does not mean that > it is >> without merit. We find it to be very useful. >> >> Tony >> >> >> >> >> On 31/3/10 15:04, "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org> wrote: >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Hammond, Tony [mailto:t.hammond@nature.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 4:51 AM >>>> To: LeVan,Ralph; Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress; OASIS SWS TC >>>> Subject: Re: [search-ws] recordPacking (Reprise) >>>> >>>> OK - maybe there's a way out of this impasse. >>>> >>>> The way we have been using the "unpacked" format is to float the >>> properties >>>> to the toplevel enclosing item which is where any OpenSearch type >>> format >>>> would reasonably expect to find them. (I used the unpacked form to >>> maintain >>>> fidelity with the XML schema.) >>> >>> Why not just do this for all your JSON responses and drop the > unpacked >>> idea entirely? We're not dictating what you stick in your JSON. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >> >> >> > ************************************************************************ > ******** >> 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 >> > ************************************************************************ > ******** >> > > ******************************************************************************** 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 ********************************************************************************
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]