> If someone could give me a strong reason to have a go at SRU,
> I could. But at present, SRW is what has my interest. I want
> to be able to say to customers "Z39.50 is good! Looks to big?
> Here is a cut down SOAP API." The customer's programmers can
> then go off and use the API in their favorite programming
> language. SRU is possibly too simple for me in order to
> appeal to programmers.
We need SRW and SRU represented in the test beds but I don' really see
any pressing need for a single site to do both at present unless they
want to/need to.
There is an issue of interoperability here - an SRW client can't talk to
an SRU server and vice versa. Do we need some "implementors agreement"
that to fully support ZiNG they must support both?
On the other hand an SRU to SRW/SRW to SRU gateway doesn't strike me as
a difficult thing to write. You only have to change a URL form to an
simple XML doc and back for the request, and add/remove a SOAP:Envelope
element on the response. Something a perl programmer could throw