> Colorado. Several people on this list were in attendance. At that
> meeting, SRW/SRU was mentioned as being "very close to the optimal
> solution" for a search and retrieval protocol. At least an XML solution
Can we quote that at JCDL? =)
> It was suggested that SRW/SRU had one serious shortcoming where
> metasearching was concerned . . . "while seeking to simplify or
> eliminate some of the complexities of Z39.50, the notion of
> searching multiple databases has been dropped . . . if the
> databases were free this would be true, but the reality is that
> each one has revenue and royalty related business rules associated
> with it and must be distinguished from the query."
I don't understand the correlation?
Surely it's /easier/ to distinguish database from database than under
multiple concurrent DB querying of Z39.50, as there's only one db being
queried at once?
Implementation of 'business rules' isn't really affected by SRW vs Z39.50
as far as I can tell.
> There was also a desire for more result-set and record metadata.
Were any specifics given?
> If SRW/SRU is to become the recommended search and retrieval protocol
> for these products, we need to invite metasearch product vendors
> and data providers to the table. Perhaps opening up the discussion
> list would be a good first step.
Sounds like a good plan to me. :)
,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. 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