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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  November 2002

ZNG November 2002

Subject:

Betr.: Re: Proposal: recordPacking

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:25:22 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (102 lines)

With in mind that SRU and SRW should provide a "lower barrier implementation" I would suggest to keep at least SRU low barrier. When everybody has to support both String and XMLfragment anyway via a parameter there is no need to make it an option. My proposal is: no additional parameter; SRU uses XMLfragment and SRW uses String.

Theo


>>> [log in to unmask] 27-11-02 12:06 >>>
> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:33:55 +0000
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Proposal for SRU v1.1

I think this is good work.  Nits picked below:

> Title:  recordPacking Parameter
> Number: 1
> Date:   26/11/02
> Author: Robert Sanderson
> Scope:  New, optional parameters for searchRetrieve operation

I misread this at first as meaning parameters on the searchRetrieve
_request_.  It would be more explicit to say something like ``New,
optional <recordPacking> parameter for the searchRetrieve request, and
a corresponding parameter in the response.''

> This string contains the escaped XML of the record in the given
> schema.  While this decision was made for good reasons, elucidated
> below, [...]

If I were you, I'd just snip the parenthetical "elucidated below" and
have done.  You don't need to justify it -- if justification _is_
required for the current default packing, then this document isn't the
right place for it.

>   In order to allow both strings and XML fragments to be returned,
> two new optional fields are required in the service.

Again, I would find this more immediately grokkable if you were
explicit that it's one in the request and one in the response.

> An explain 'default' field

Not necessarily -- see below.

> (1) A new parameter for searchRetrieveRequest called
> <recordPacking>, of type string.  This has two valid values,
> 'string' and 'xmlfragment'.

How about, "This *currently* has two valid values"?

> (2) A new field for the record structure, also called
> <recordPacking>, of type string.  This has the same two valid
> values, and records the packing type for that record.

Best to say at this point that it is included in the response record
only when it was included in the request.

> (3) An explain 'default' field called 'recordPacking' which records
> which of the two values is the default.  It is suggested for version
> 1 compatability this should be 'string' unless there are exceptional
> circumstances.

Since I can't think of any such exceptional circumstances, and since
having to support the remote possibility of such exceptional
circumstances places an additional, unnecessary burden on client
implementors, and since we are keen to avoid ZeeRex bloat for fear
that it will impede take-up, I favour the simpler approach of merely
mandating that records are _always_ packed as strings unless the
client explicitly requests otherwise.  Then we can dump this new
explain requirement.

> Compatability and Implementation:
>
> New WSDL would be required to support this extension, but is
> otherwise backwards compatible with SRW v1.0.

You could make this more explicity by replacing "otherwise" with
"on-the-wire".

> If this proposal is approved, new implementers could implement this
> without fear of interoperability issues [...]

Yes.

> [...] so long as they only include the recordPacking field in the
> response when asked for it in the request until version 1.1 is
> finalised.

You don't need to say this here if you've already said it above -- a
narrative sequence that more clearly expounds our thinking.

> Support From:
>   Robert Sanderson

Mike Taylor :-)

Thanks, Rob.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <[log in to unmask]>   www.miketaylor.org.uk 
)_v__/\  "Normally Sir, yes.  Today, the van broke down" -- Monty
         Python.

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