LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  December 2007

ZNG December 2007

Subject:

Re: Say NO to mandatory Atom Feeds

From:

"Dr R. Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:49:05 +0000

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (82 lines)

As an aside, please note that this is just one of many mandatory 
elements in ATOM.
When we're done with atom:id, there's a whole raft of semantics for 
other elements to discuss ;)

Like... who is the author of a search result?

( atom:feed elements MUST contain one or more atom:author elements, 
unless all of the atom:feed element's child atom:entry elements contain at 
least one atom:author element )


What does it mean to have an updated timestamp for a search result?
Does it change every time? What if you just repeat the same search and 
none of the entries have changed? What if you repeat the same search, 
the results are the same, but the sort is different?

( atom:feed elements MUST contain exactly one atom:updated element. )

etc.


Rob


On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:

> From: "Erik Hetzner" <[log in to unmask]>
>>  The point of atom:id is NOT to provide a URL
>> for retrieving the document; it is to provide an ID so that systems
>> know when one entry is the same as another.
>
> This is a very interesting point. First of all I could interpret that to
> mean either (1) to provide a clue that two records in a result set are the
> same (an aid to deduplication), or (2) that  records in different result
> sets are the same.  Could be both, but I suspect the second is the more
> important case. If so, I think the implications are deep: While I think this
> is  potentially useful, we cannot define such a parameter (with those
> semantics) unless implementors are prepared to support it  (again, support
> it in good faith) but this is something totally foreign to Z39.50 and SRU so
> I have no idea who, if anyone,  is prepared to support it.
>
>>> Ralph says not all records have an id. But if you can create a URI
>>> for the result set, you can create a URI for each record - I content
>>> that it is sufficient to merely append the result set position. Then
>>> you have created a good faith identifier.
>>
>> Agreed, presuming that you can be certain that this ID will never mean
>> a different record, and that atom:id is read to mean the ID for this
>> result, not this record.
>
> I don't know if I agree with this presumption.
>
>>
>>> Or If you have a real id for the record, but retrieval by that id
>>> won't retrieve result-set-related metadata, I would say that passes
>>> the "good faith" test. If you want to provide an id that allow
>>> subsequent retrieval of the record plus its result-set-related
>>> metadata, good, but I don't see that as a requirement.
>>
>> Agreed, but in this case I would say that the atom:id identifies the
>> record only, and therefore the same id must always be used for the
>> same record in a result set.
>
> I agree.
>
>
>>> I would go so far as to suggest that you could use the SRU URL used
>>> to create the result set (perhaps modified so maxRecords is set to
>>> zero) as the URI for the set; and for a given record, the same url
>>> modified to retrieve that single record.
>>
>> Doesn't this presume that the data behind the service will never
>> change?
>
> No.  It definitely does not presume that.   But we do have parameters like
> "time to live" which the server supplies as an estimate of how long it  the
> data will remain stable.  Not a guarantee, but a good faith estimate.
>
> --Ray
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager