LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  June 2002

ZNG June 2002

Subject:

Betr.: Meeting Plan

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:55:25 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (60 lines)

I will not be able to come to the meeting butI have the following agenda items with below some additional explanation.

1) SRU versus SRW
2) Parameters versus webservices
3) Self explaining responses.

------

SRU and SRW:
I think it is important to agree that SRU and SRW will be and remain basically the same. As a consequence we have to keep the request syntax URL-friendly, but it facilitates supporting both protocols and developing SRU-SRW gateways. The only externally noticable differences between both are:
a) the way a request is issued (URL or SOAP-post)
b) the response being in a SOAP-envelope or not
c) the extra level of escaping "<" and ">" needed for SOAP

----

Parameters versus webservices.
I would suggest to be very sparesome (is this an English word?) with adding new webservices where an optional parameter would be sufficient. This allows us to use the same base-url for different functions, which is quite convenient. I think we can already anticipate on possible functions, for which we can reserve a parameter (optional). The specification of the exact usage can be refined later (like we did for CQL). Examples for such parameters are:
a) sortfield(s)
b) flag to indicate the type of request 1)search, 2) scan, 3) fuzzy 4) search but additional scan or fuzzy list is allowed 5) specific records from resultset etc.
c) optional stylesheet reference in response to allow transformation in the browser. I assume also in case of SRW the user will use a webbrowser to see the results and such a reference could smetimes be useful.

----

3) Self explaining responses
A more fundamental issue in my opinion is the question whether the SRU/SRW responses should be self explaining. Like minimizing the need for servers to remember session-context the SRU/SRW protocol would in my view improve when clients/gateways do not have to remember session context either. A client then acts on the response rather than what was requested.
A first step is echoing the request parameters in the response (this is an old issue but I cannot remember a decision).
In the context of not fully supported optional parameters a self explaining response allows servers = within reasonable limits = to give a "best response" in case they can not retrurn exactly what is requested instead of returning 0 hits or an error message. In my view this will be the main key to interoperability. This may require some extra tags to describe the response but lets first see if there can be agreement on this issue.
Example: a client does a search resulting in 0 hits but the server is able to return the result of a scan. Most users would be glad with such a response.
For this example the only thing that is required is a tag <indexTerms> sibling to <records> in the searchRetrieveResponse.

---

As I will not be attending the meeting, if more clarification is needed please let me know.

Theo



>>> [log in to unmask] 10-06-02 16:27 >>>
Time to start building an agenda for the July
11-12 meeting, and an attendance list.

Please see:
http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/meeting-july02/meeting-july02.html

(I'm not publicizing this page, so there is no
link to it.)

Everyone on this list, please tell me explicitly
whether or not you're coming to the meeting (when
you know with reasonable certainty) so I can add
you to one of the two lists on the attendance
page.

Also, please send agenda items, whether you're
coming or not.

--Ray

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager