> a position in a resultset. The recordid should become part of the
> SRU/SRW specifications as request parameter and in the SRU/SRW response.

A) What if the record doesn't have a unique persistant id?

B) Why not just use the existing mechanism of CQL?
...&query=identifier%="foo1"

C) As record metadata, it belongs with record metadata, however we handle
this.

> valuable. The concept of DCX is explained below and I will submit a
> proposal to the DCMI to adopt this concept. I would like to propose
> support of DCX (rather than DC) as compulsary in SRU/SRW.
> Please give me your opnion on this.

My opinion hasn't changed from the other times you brought it up ;)
OTOH, if the DCMI approve it, then we should make it possible to support.

Changing the requirement to support DCX over DC is a little too far
though, as it could require a LOT of work on the client side to handle
sensibly. DC as mandatory is there to enable a minimum standard, not
necessarily one that can be used for all purposes.

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