Rob, although I appreciate your suggestion, I would not consider it as a
part of diagnostics, but just as optional response block or perhaps a
single block with optional responses like for example:
<SRW:optional_responses>
   <access_points />
   <fuzzy_matches />
<SRW:optonal_responses>

<recordXML> with recordSchema=DC(X) as optional alternative when the
requested schema or XSLT is not available could be part of such a block
but for the sake of simplicity of implementations I would strongly
prefer it to be at the usual level for recordXML. Because the diagnostic
says that it is not what you asked for and recordSchema defines the
required transformation, there is no ambiguity.  We should hide these
kinds of responses in a cormer. But perhaps we need to wait for a
specific metasearch protocol dealing with these kind of things more
specifically. I expect such a protocol will go exactly this way.

But I promised to keep silent on this subject now, so I try.

Theo

>>> [log in to unmask] 8/12/03 1:15:01 nm >>>
A private section for diagnostics for people who really think they want
to
stick this information in?  Say 5000+ ?

Rob


On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Theo van Veen wrote:

> 2) server A return x hits (conventional), server B returns a
diagnostic
> saying not supprting "any" and server C returns additionally a list
of
> access points K,L,M with for each acces point the number of hits
(assume
> that this is part of SRU/SRW and the server's creaitivity)

--
      ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      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