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.

Theo

>>> [log in to unmask] 05/23 3:04 nm >>>
> >I almost agree with their solution, but not quite.  I'd prefer
> ><multipleSearchRetrieveRequest>
> >  <singleSearchRetrieveRequest>
> >    <resource>/foo/</resource>
> >      <searchRetrieveRequest>
> >        <query>...

> In which cases is there a need to send =different= queries to
different
> databases on the same system simulateously? I can imagine a single
query
> is broadcasted simultaneously.

Yes.  For example, if one database has to be searched using dc.foo and
a
second database has to be searched using bath.foo.
Perhaps one database has subject fields, but another you have to rely
on
a free text search of 'topic' or 'description'.

Perhaps:

<resources>
   <resource>/foo</resource>
   <resource>/bar</resource>
</resources>

If people are concerned that we might end up repeating the identical
query
many times.


> >So a field which allows you to point at other ways to get to the
same
> >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
for

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

--
      ,'/:.          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