> In response to a previous question of Rob:
> >On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Theo van Veen wrote:
> >> The diagnostic does not have to be a surrogate for a specific record as
> >> the request was also not for a specific record. So it can be at record
> >> level. With respect to the "minimal" metadata I would prefer a
> >I'm sorry, I don't understand. Surely a diagnostic at record level is
> >surrogate diagnostic? You can't have a record and a diagnostic in the
> >same space. We need extend the diagnostic schema to allow for some
> >bits of optional (assuming that we do anything).
> I made a mistake there. What I meant was that a request for xPath is
> for all records so at message level. I do expect a server response with
> "i cannot do xPath" rather than I can do it for this record but I cannot
> do it for that record". So I expect the diagnostic to be at message
Ahh, wait though, there are several possible diagnostics:
* I can't do XPath at all so don't ask me to.
* I can't do the particular XPath you asked for at all.
* I can't do the particular XPath for this particular record.
(possibly because the XPath doesn't exist for that record)
> But I see your point and extending the diagnostic schema to allow for
> optional metadata would be an option also.
I think adding a single, optional record id field to the diagnostic schema
to allow for surrogate diagnostics in a search that isn't part of a result
set is actually pretty important. The more I think about it, the more
useful it seems.
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: telnet: nebmedes.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I