On Thu, 22 May 2003, Robert Sanderson wrote:

> > Colorado.  Several people on this list were in attendance.  At that
> > meeting, SRW/SRU was mentioned as being "very close to the optimal
> > solution" for a search and retrieval protocol.  At least an XML solution
>
> Can we quote that at JCDL? =)

Rob,
At the following address you will find links to six workshop papers.
Take a look at the one for "Searching Options".  The quote above is lifted
directly from that paper.

http://www.niso.org/committees/MS-workshop.html

It wasn't clear to me if, after discussions, this break-out group was as
enthusiastic about SRW/SRU as this quote, in a paper prepared
before the meeting, would indicate.  However, perhaps Sebastian has some
thoughts about that.

>
> > It was suggested that SRW/SRU had one serious shortcoming where
> > metasearching was concerned . . . "while seeking to simplify or
> > eliminate some of the complexities of Z39.50, the notion of
> > searching multiple databases has been dropped . . . if the
> > databases were free this would be true, but the reality is that
> > each one has revenue and royalty related business rules associated
> > with it and must be distinguished from the query."
>
> I don't understand the correlation?

The Search Options paper also addresses this concern.  The desire is
to search multiple databases with a single XML query.

>
> Surely it's /easier/ to distinguish database from database than under
> multiple concurrent DB querying of Z39.50, as there's only one db being
> queried at once?
>
> Implementation of 'business rules' isn't really affected by SRW vs Z39.50
> as far as I can tell.

The database providers just don't want one user searching 12 of their
databases to generate 12 separate sessions.

>
> > There was also a desire for more result-set and record metadata.
>
> Were any specifics given?

Same URL listed above . . . see the "Results Set Management" (actually
titled "Result Set and Single Record Metadata") paper.  This paper is
very general in nature, but one issue I remember being mentioned was that
when comparing results from a number of databases it was difficult to
determine the relevance in a particular database.  A concern that the
"good stuff" is listed on the third or fourth screen and not on the first
screen.
Larry

>
> > If SRW/SRU is to become the recommended search and retrieval protocol
> > for these products, we need to invite metasearch product vendors
> > and data providers to the table.  Perhaps opening up the discussion
> > list would be a good first step.
>
> Sounds like a good plan to me. :)
>
> Rob
>
> --
>       ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
>     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
>   ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
> ,'---/::::::::::.    Twin Cathedrals:  telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
> ____/:::::::::::::.              WWW:  http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
> I L L U M I N A T I


------------------------------------------------------------
Larry E. Dixson                    Internet:    [log in to unmask]
Network Development and MARC
   Standards Office, LM639
Library of Congress                Telephone: (202) 707-5807
Washington, D.C.  20540-4402       Fax:       (202) 707-0115