There's nothing to object to in this proposal. I'm looking forward to the
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: srw futures
> Let's talk about the near- and not-so-near-term
> future of SRW.
> I suggest we consider a meeting in August. One
> agenda item could be to finalize 1.1 (which is
> supposed to be ready 6-9 month after 1.0, which
> was end-of-November; 9 months would be August).
> We may be able to do that without a meeting, or
> maybe not; the meeting I have in mind would be
> larger in scope (but could include finalizing 1.1
> if we need a meeting to do that).
> Some of us are looking at a possible larger (open)
> meeting sometime around October, and the August
> meeting would be preliminary to that. Let's call
> the October meeting a ZIG meeting for the sake of
> this discussion. (It would be a reformulation of
> the ZIG, with a new name, and that's about all I'm
> prepared to say on that, at this point.) There is
> some ZIG business on the table and that would be
> part of the agenda, as there hasn't been a ZIG
> meeting since April 2002. I expect we would also
> begin to look critically at migrating some of the
> Z39.50 functionality towards SRW or into other new
> web services. And we want to determine the
> metasearch requirements so that we can accomodate
> them in Z39.50 or SRW (or new services).
> The August meeting would be a small (closed)
> group, 2 days -- day 1 SRW implementors only, day
> 2 to add a few of the metasearch players --
> database aggregators, content providers, providers
> of protocol applications (e.g. OAI). Day 1 we
> would spend some time formulating issues to take
> up with the metasearch folks on day 2.
> We need to have 1.1 in place, along with
> implementations or demos, in order to establish
> credibility with the metasearch folks. I'm going
> to begin to bring the implementor page up-to-date,
> and ask people to provide links to servers, demos,
> etc. Should we add a separate page for SRW
> servers? (And SRU servers?) With Z39.50, there is
> an implementor page and a separate server page.
> Please post your thoughts on all of this.
> (There's been recent talk about opening up this
> list, and I'm planning to do it, but I'll wait
> awhile, until we can get some of this discussion
> out of the way.)