[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [search-ws] recordPacking - A Proposal
Humpf. You are, of course, strictly correct. But I would suggest that we are talking here about extension formats and for transactions that want scientific verifiability they use the baseline SRU format which is locked down with a schema. And that is what we in fact would suggest using in a server to server context. (And hell, we are even doing that internally ourselves with our Mobile App Server which is now targetting our OpenSearch server as its data source. Yes, we are using SRU/XML.) The open media type formats are by their very nature breezy alternatives. If the trade for fidelity is agility then I would bend in that direction. But, as I've said before, we are adhering to what is (or what we take to be) reference versions. I don't see there is any real problem in the client asking for server prepping - especially if that prepping is following a known reference implementation. Tony On 16/4/10 16:09, "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org> wrote: > My problem is that what you are proposing is "server magic". The client > is essentially saying, I don't like the standard way of presenting these > records, please make it better. Whenever we have done this we end up > having to provide the client with a way of controlling the magic. We > have to provide a way for the server to describe the magic and the > client to control what magic they get. It is completely > non-interoperable because the magic you perform will be different from > the magic I perform. In the long run, it is not binary, just as > recordPacking is not binary. > > Ralph > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hammond, Tony [mailto:t.hammond@nature.com] >> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 10:12 AM >> To: LeVan,Ralph; OASIS SWS TC >> Subject: Re: [search-ws] recordPacking - A Proposal >> >> Hi Ralph: >> >> Actually I don't know why we are making such heavy weather of this. > This is >> not a mathematical exercise in identifying permutation groups. Just > data >> exchange between consenting applications. >> >> I would suggest there is a logical unpacking for data properties, same > as >> there is a logical way to go when you're submerged under water and > busting >> for air. Data likewise would head homewards. >> >> And this is borne out by consumer apps (e.g. RSS readers, browsers, > etc) >> that are likely to find known properties (mostly DC, I guess) at the > item >> level rather than buried down in the architecture. >> >> And then you would argue why not make this the default version, and I > would >> say because then we break symmetry with the canonical SRU/XML record. > And >> because doing it my way XML formats can a) deliver the original XML > data >> record (schema intact) as well as b) deliver a consumer app friendly >> version. >> >> Tony >> >> >> >> On 16/4/10 14:42, "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org> wrote: >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Hammond, Tony [mailto:t.hammond@nature.com] >>>> >>>> 2. A "recordPacking" parameter suggests a value set of "packed" >>> and >>>> "unpacked" (or alterantely boolean equivalents) >>> >>> Can you explain how it is that this is only a Boolean choice? It > seems >>> to me that records can be unpacked in more than one way. >>> >>> 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]