Re: [search-ws] Back to Record Packing

["Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>]

'Sorry, but the "Les Wibberley" defense is not going to be allowed.'

I believe that's the first time you've ever gotten his name right.  (It was 
always Wes Liberty, or something.)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>
To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>; "OASIS SWS TC" 
<search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 5:29 PM
Subject: RE: [search-ws] Back to Record Packing


Sorry, but the "Les Wibberley" defense is not going to be allowed.  I've
got parameters going into my server that I don't expect the standard to
support.

Tony can do whatever he wants locally, but he can't expect the rest of
us to do it too.  (Actually, I don't think he does expect us too, he
just doesn't want to have to say that his URIs are non-compliant.)

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:45 PM
> To: OASIS SWS TC
> Subject: Re: [search-ws] Back to Record Packing
>
> I don't think that's a viable choice when we have a requirement on the
> table, from an implementer, who has actually implemented this.
>
> --Ray
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>
> To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>; "OASIS SWS
TC"
> <search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:40 PM
> Subject: RE: [search-ws] Back to Record Packing
>
>
> 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
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>