>>>> [log in to unmask] 05/23 2:53 nm >>>
>> 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?

Then is can't be done.

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

This could also be an option, although I personally prefer to
distinghuish between processing SRU/SRW parameters (as part of the
SRU-protocol) and processing the contents of the metadata record (as
part of the actual applications). This is also the reason why I never
like resultsetid to be part of the query instead of being a separate
parameter.

>
>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

I would expect the opposite, because you only have to neglect terms you
do not know. When using stylesheets you do not have to do anything to
neglect the terms you do not know.

>sensibly.  DC as mandatory is there to enable a minimum standard, not
>necessarily one that can be used for all purposes.

In this respect DC and DCX do not differ.

Theo