There would be things we don't need in SRW - I'm no longer so sure that
warrants having separate schemas for the two.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theo van Veen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 06 February 2002 14:27
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Betr.: Re: issues list
> I think the few extensions that we possibly need do not justify two
> response schemas (RS-1 and RS-2). Are there examples of what we need
> SRU that we certainly don't want in SRW?
> The extensions that I like to have are usable in as well SRU and SRW
> could be optional anyway. For example returning the requesting
> in the response to keep the response selfexplainable.
> >>> [log in to unmask] 06-02-02 13:58 >>>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 06 February 2002 11:55
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: issues list
> > I don't see how you can kill responseSchema from SRU. The whole
> > SRU was the clients ability to specify a responseSchema whose
> > were
> > greater than an SRW response. If I want a button on the screen that
> > "Next Five Records", then there better be the data in the response
> that I
> > can put behind that button. Remember, there is no processing of the
> > response, simply reformatting from XML to HTML.
> At a guess you'd need the query and base URL in the response and then
> use the XSLT count function to work out the startRecord for the next
> Reread my original proposal since I think you have missed a
> I was not arguing that SRU should return the SRW response but that we
> have an extended schema for SRU which includes SRW plus the additional
> information for this sort of application. Once we've defined this
> extended schema for SRU (lets call this RS-2) do will still need to
> offer the ability to extend this even further.
> For simplicity can't we just have RS-1 used in SRW and an extension
> used in SRU and leave it there?