On Sep 28, 2006, at 9:13 PM, Erik Hetzner wrote:
> a) URIs that define a unique record, and perhaps a particular version
> of that record.
>
> b) the HTTP verbs define the operations: PUT (replace in this
> proposal), POST (create), DELETE (delete).
>
> c) the HTTP response codes define a great number of possible statuses,
> including success (200), failure (4xx), delayed (202 Accepted), etc.
>
> d) other response information, if required and it is not possible to
> fit into the HTTP headers, can be wrapped around the srw:record
> element.
>
> A solution of this sort seems to me to be simpler and easier to
> implement, especially for those who have currently implemented SRU but
> not SRW.

I must admit I find this sort of RESTful api much more compelling-- 
especially given the similar approach taken with the Atom-Publishing- 
Protocol.

<heresy>
I know that Record-Update has been in the works for a bit, and that  
APP is relatively new. Nevertheless, have the authors of Record- 
Update actually looked at existing standards such as APP for doing  
this sort of record updating over HTTP?

I'm wondering if creating another niche standard only used by the  
library world is actually doing anyone in said world that much of a  
service in the long run.
</heresy>

Erik, thanks for your honest response...I'm glad I'm not totally alone.

//Ed