On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Mike Taylor wrote:
> > From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>
> > 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:
> > http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw1-1/result-sets.html
> > I think the "does not require" part is fine. However I would prefer
> > (second sentence) "It does require..." changed to "It does expect...".
> I think the current wording is fine. A server that does not state
> whether or not it supports persistent result sets is not an SRW
I don't mind either way. I think that 'expect' is probably slightly more
reasonable, but <supports type="resultSets"/> isn't hard or time
consuming to add to a ZeeRex file.
> > 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 meeting.
> > Is everyone comfortable with this?
> I don't understand why it's preferable to specifying what is and isn't
> conforming behaviour. I can't see the advantage to the world in
I think that the base profile should be very clear as to what is -not-
required to be supported. For example, is Scan part of the base profile?
If not, then it has to be 'expected' that you would put <supports
type=scan> into every zeerex file where it's supported.
We already require a lot of 'profiles' -- more than in Z39.50. I'd rather
not see a profile which says something like: You have to support scan,
you don't have to support sort, you don't have to support result sets.
That just seems like the basics which you need to do, but can declare your
servers' failure in the zeerex.
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I