Sebastian Hammer wrote:
> The question is whether we can specify a sufficiently powerful
> multi-database mechanism without throwing the simplicity of the protocol
Is it really so complicated?
We would need a databaseName parameter (optional, repeatable) in the query,
databaseName element in <RecordData> within <record> in <searchRetrieveResponse>
and some hit count information.
And semantics. But the semantics are well-developed for Z39.50, and would be much
simpler in an SRW context. They could be extracted/modified from:
or look at:
184.108.40.206.2 "2. Multi Database searching" and 220.127.116.11.7 "When query is not
supported for a database", etc.