> > >             <recordSchemas>
> > >                     <recordSchema name="dc"
> > >                     </recordSchemas>
> > Our recordSyntax/elementSet elements.
> Well, the syntax might be made to be the same, but the semantics aren't.
> Schemas aren't recordSyntaxes.  ElementSets are schemas but they need to be
> in the context of a recordSyntax, which is implicitly XML for us.

Right.  You'd have:

<recordSyntax name="XML">
  <elementSet name="dc" ...>
</recordSyntax>

As SRW is a subset (so to speak) of Z39.50, there's always going to be
this sort of implicit defintion being explicitly described.

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