I agree. Merry Christmas everyone,
From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 23 December 2003 16:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: requirements and expectations
I want to know how people feel about how we should state what srw does and
does not require. For example, in the result set section:
"SRW does not require the support of persistent result sets that may be
accessed by a client in subsequent requests. It does require the server to
state whether or not it supports them, ....."
I think the "does not require" part is fine. However I would prefer
(second sentence) "It does require..." changed to "It does expect...".
Because I'm not sure where this "requirement" would (or whether it should)
I would like srw to continue along the lines of publishing a "base profile"
and avoiding a formal "conformance" section (the base profile will serve
effectively as conformance in most cases, that's what customers will point
vendors to, but for some who want to implement less than the base profile,
we don't have to deal with the philosophical question of whether they're
doing srw or not). And this is basically what we agreed to at the September
Is everyone comfortable with this?