RE: [search-ws] SRU Diagnostics: Annex C

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

I'd propose a different URI for cql and a different authority component
for each range of SRU specific diagnostics.  I'd assign the same numbers
as are currently being used to each of the new authority components.
That might make for gaps before and after the ranges, but I don't see
that as a big deal

So, info:cql/diagnostic/1/10-49 for the current CQL diagnostics, with
unlimited room for growth.  Info:sru/diagnostic/1/1-9 for SRU general
diagnostics, info:sru/diagnostic/2/50-60 for result set diagnostics,
etc.

Ralph

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 11:12 AM
To: search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [search-ws] SRU Diagnostics: Annex C

While I'm working on a new draft we might as well resolve this issue
that
Matthew has brought up. Does anyone besides Matthew and me have an
opinion
on this?

The current method to identify a standard diagnostic is via an info URI,
the
base URI being 

info:srw/diagnostic/1

where the '1', called the "authorith component", is assigned to "SRU".
And
then the actual diagnostic is appended, so for diagnostic 2 the URI
would be


info:srw/diagnostic/1/2.

The problem Matthew cites it that we have allocated ranges for different
classes of diagnostics, so 1-9 for general, 10-49 for cql, 50-60 for
result
sets and so on.   So if you have another cql diagnostic it cannot be 51,
instead you have to start a new range in an unallocated area.  Which may
be
somewhat akward but which I don't see as a real problem.   Matthew
suggests
that we could instead use different "authority components" and then all
numbering could start with 1. 

Two problems I have with this. 

1.  It would make interoperability more difficult with earlier versions.

2.  That component of the URI is the "authority component" intended to
be
assigned to an authority who intends to assign diagnostics. In fact,
authorith strings 1-15 have already been assigned. I'm not sure how we
would
go about implementing this suggestion, start assigning categories with
16,
where that component has an entirely different meaning?  Start all over
with
a new URI?  

Any opinions?

--Ray





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Dovey [mailto:m.dovey@jisc.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:30 PM
> To: Denenberg, Ray; 'LeVan,Ralph'; 'Hammond,Tony'; search-
> ws@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [search-ws] SRU Diagnostics: Annex C
> 
> > The idea of instead defining different namespaces for different
> > categories of diagnostics is an interesting alternative approach,
but
> it would make interoperability more difficult with earlier versions,
> wouldn't it?
> 
> I don't see why this should be an issue any more than the other
changes
> to SRU 2.0 that hinder backwards interoperability such as the changes
> to the schema namespaces.
> 
> There is no particularly reason why the numbers in a particular
> namespace have to be contiguous or start at one, so the cql
diagnostics
> could have the same codes just in a different namespace.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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