I suspect, that I was partly responsible for introducing the ResponseSchema
parameter. But I have now become wiser and agree, that we should drop the
ResponseSchema parameter and limit ourselves to the RecordSchema parameter.
It is usefull to (optionally) indicate an alternative RecordSchema which
makes it easy to imitate the Z39.50 Retrieval model.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
From: Alan Kent [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 15. maj 2002 01:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: srw instances -- response schema vs. wsdl
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 10:05:59AM -0400, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> ...If that's
> the reason, and if we now agree that there won't be more than one response
> format (do we agree?) then can we now define the response in the wsdl and
> rid of rs1?
My understanding is that the WSDL file defines the single structure for
returning records within (for SRW). There was still 1 switch left which
was to specify the preferred form of XML (eg: Dublin Core vs MODS) for
the record to be returned in ("record schema"). But there was no need
for different "response schema"s in SRW.
Alan Kent (mailto:[log in to unmask], http://www.mds.rmit.edu.au/~ajk/)
Project: TeraText Technical Director, InQuirion Pty Ltd (www.inquirion.com)
Postal: Multimedia Database Systems, RMIT, GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001.
Where: RMIT MDS, Bld 91, Level 3, 110 Victoria St, Carlton 3053, VIC
Phone: +61 3 9925 4114 Reception: +61 3 9925 4099 Fax: +61 3 9925 4098