RE: [search-ws] Back to Record Packing

["LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>]

I vote to just drop the subject.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:19 PM
> To: OASIS SWS TC
> Subject: Re: [search-ws] Back to Record Packing
> 
> So, following up on yesterday's message ... according to this plan,
> recordPacking would have these values:
> 
> - string
> - xml
> - loose
> -strict
> 
> There are the following issues/notes.
> 
> - First of all, string and xml would apply only when the serialization
is
> xml. loose and strict would apply to any serialization.
> 
> - a value of string or xml (assuming an xml serialization) should not
> preclude a value of loose or strict, that is, string vs. xml and loose
vs.
> strict are orthogonal.  This means that the parameter is repeatable,
or can
> occur zero to two times.
> More precisely:
> o For an XML serialization it may occur zero, one, or two times. If
the
> value 'string' is supplied then the value 'xml' may not be supplied,
and if
> the value 'loose' is supplied then the value 'strict' may not be
supplied.
> o For a non XML serialization it may occur zero or one time. Neither
of the
> values 'string' or 'xml' may  be supplied, and if the value 'loose' is
> supplied then the value 'strict' may not be supplied.
> 
> - Finally,  the orthogonality seems to me to make this
parameter/element
> sematics overloaded and akward.
> 
> Nevertheless, I'm willing to go with this if everyone else is.
However I
> need feedback on this soon, please.
> 
> --Ray
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>
> To: "OASIS SWS TC" <search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 5:50 PM
> Subject: [search-ws] Back to Record Packing
> 
> 
> > Trying to get  the "Record Packing" discussion back on the fast
track, the
> > discussion veered off to issues that may be orthogonal, or may not,
for
> > example how to pair the media type and schema.
> >
> > But Tony, is it fair to say that the essence of what you are trying
to
> > achieve is (as you have put it) "allow for the possibility of the
record
> > data to rattle around a fixed skeleton."   And, in essence, you're
> > proposing "unpacked" as a value of recordPacking to mean this?
> >
> > Is this a fair summary?
> >
> > If so, recall that in the last message on this, I suggested that  If
we
> > allow the client to say "unpacked" we also need to allow it to say
> > "packed", because we're going to want the server to be able to
designate
> > (in Explain) the default, so that if it designates
json/(SRU)/unpacked as
> > the default then the client doesn't have to say "unpacked" if that's
what
> > it wants but it has to say "packed" if that's what it wants. Right?
> >
> > I also suggested that  we change "packed" and "unpacked" to "loose"
and
> > "strict"?
> >
> > So if the client requests "loose" this means that the server is at
liberty
> > to supply a variation of the schema; if "strict" is requested then
the
> > server should suppy the schema according to its definition.
> >
> > --Ray
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>