[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [search-ws] recordPacking (Reprise)
Just to pick up one thing here: > additional parameter value, "unpacked", so that if you specify json as the > mime type, and use the default response type, then you can also say I am not just talking about JSON. I am talking about *all* the response types we are considering: JSON, RSS, ATOM. I remain surprised that such a little detail is causing so much problem. I am suggesting that there is a standard response per media type which corresponds as closely as possible to the canonical SRU/XML response. That seems to me to be a good thing. Certainly helps users understand the relationship of the SRU response mapping across different formats. I am suggesting further that clients might be given a helping hand by preparing the data so its ready for them on the plate. The terminology seems to bear this out. Records are packed and so can be unpacked (if the client asks the server to do so). I don't think this is quite as exceptional as this thread is suggesting. The data is still there - it's not run away - it's just server unpacked for the client (at client's wish). The data also doesn't go just anywhere - it just filters up through the packing to the topmost item container. I can see value in standard SRU responses. I can see value in allowing a processing hint for the client to request of the server. I can see value in applying consistent terminology. I don't see why this is such a big deal. It's the same schema. It's standard as per the draft. It attends to client needs while conforming to standard practices. If we define the OpenSearch responses to be unpacked only then we lose the connexion with the standard response. I don't see the point in doing that. Tony On 31/3/10 16:16, "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov> wrote: > If the rule is that for a given mime type there is a default response type, > this seems to me to be a reasonable approach and a basis to reach an > agreement on all of this. > > What seems to be complicating this is the suggestion that there be an > additional parameter value, "unpacked", so that if you specify json as the > mime type, and use the default response type, then you can also say > "unpacked" to get a variation of this response type. I think this is an > un-necessary complication and that there should be a separate response type. > If you plan to use the unpacked variation most (or all) of the time, make > that your default, and then define another response type to cover the > non-unpacked variation. > > --Ray > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org> > To: "Hammond, Tony" <t.hammond@nature.com>; "Ray Denenberg, Library of > Congress" <rden@loc.gov>; "OASIS SWS TC" <search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org> > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:51 AM > Subject: RE: [search-ws] recordPacking (Reprise) > > > 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 >> > ************************************************************************ > ******** >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ******************************************************************************** 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]