I see the point, although I think that - when even the queries are
different - it should not make a big difference to send different
queries to different base-URLs. I personally do not think it is worth
the extra complexity.
>>> [log in to unmask] 05/23 3:04 nm >>>
> >I almost agree with their solution, but not quite. I'd prefer
> > <singleSearchRetrieveRequest>
> > <resource>/foo/</resource>
> > <searchRetrieveRequest>
> > <query>...
> In which cases is there a need to send =different= queries to
> databases on the same system simulateously? I can imagine a single
> is broadcasted simultaneously.
Yes. For example, if one database has to be searched using dc.foo and
second database has to be searched using bath.foo.
Perhaps one database has subject fields, but another you have to rely
a free text search of 'topic' or 'description'.
If people are concerned that we might end up repeating the identical
> >So a field which allows you to point at other ways to get to the
> >digital object, regardless of the schema that's requested for the
> >Sounds reasonable.
> I would prefer to let such a field be part of the record metadata
> rather than part the SRW/SRU parameters. Data providers can decide
Yes :) Definitely. But currently we don't have a space for metadata
outside of the record itself, which is where I think it belongs...
otherwise you can't retrieve metadata for a record which doesn't have
space for metadata in the schema.
,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I