> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:19:40 -0500
> From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > The other half, if I understand him correctly, is that he he wants
> > to have a situation where a client asks for the DC schema, or the
> > CIMI schema, or whatever, and the server unilaterally says, "No
> > can do, but here's a DCX record". (Right, Theo?)
> >
> > Now in out-of-the-box SRW/U, that's illegal. But it's precisely the
> > sort of requirement for which we introduced extraRequestData.
>
> How are we conveying in the spec the semantics that Rob describes
> here?
(That was me, not Rob.)
> Specifically I think Rob's saying "the value of recordSchema within
> record within records, in the response, must be the same as the
> value of recordSchema in the request, if supplied (and if the record
> is not a diagnostic) [...]
Yes, that's right. I am very surprised that you say this is not in
the existing specifications, I suppose I (and others?) had been taking
it for granted. I propose then that we add it forthwith.
> [...] *unless* there is some extraRequestData which modifies the
> semantics herein expressed."
I think this bit goes without saying -- it's kind of the point of
extraRequestData that it can modify the semantics that otherwise
pertain. We don't want to end up plastering the whole SRW
specification with "... unless an extraRequestData element says
otherwise".
_/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Where d'you get the coconuts?" -- Monty Python and the
Holy Grail.
--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/
|