> Note I don't trust the SOAP tool I am using much (I wrote it! 
> :-), so some of the errors might be in my tool for the work 
> arounds.

Thanks for the proof-reading, Alan.

There aren't that many reliable WSDL tools around at present. I've been
trying a few and they all seem used slightly different dialects (the
nullable vs nillable confusion stems from them). Most of the WSDL is
therefore handwritten.

The only change I have serious issue with (as you suspected) is the TTL
type. I originally intended this to be a time/date stamp when the result
set expired rather than a duration. The problem with duration is when do
you start measuring it from (the time the client sends the request, the
time the server receives the request, the time the server sends the
response, the time the client receives the response). With network and
processing latency these four events will occur at different times. Have
a date/time removes this ambiquity (we'll assume that all machines have
decent mechanisms for keeping their clocks synchronised e.g. the NTP
protocol). It would also allow us in the future to consider although
transport mechanisms for SRW which have larger latencies, e.g. SOAP over
SMTP.

Matthew