LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


ZNG@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  December 2003

ZNG December 2003

Subject:

Re: Unknown Params in SRU

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:19:32 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (113 lines)

But why not specify each new parameter at the time it is needed? How
does extraRequestData "prepare" anything for unforeseen extensions. I
can see that in the SRW the toolkits need to have an extraRequestData
container tag for all unknown input parameters, but in SRU that is not
needed. The server just ignores what it does not understand, echoes
parameters with an x-prefix and process the rest.

Theo


>>> [log in to unmask] 3-12-03 15:53:51 >>>
extraRequestData allows SRW/U to be extended in unforeseen ways.  It
is
envisaged that it will be used for things other than onSearchFail such
as
unspecific data that needs to be echoed, authentication tokens, etc.

Janifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Theo van Veen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 03 December 2003 15:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Unknown Params in SRU


Perhaps we should do one step back befor making things more
complicated
than needed.
Lets look at the following scenarios:

Server A has a nice feature to provide extra data. Although I would
send this extra data unsollicited we agree that well behaving servers
do
this only on request.
Thus: we need a x-parameter telling the server he has the permission
to
do so. As this parameter is prefixed with x- we may send it to any
server. Other servers will optionally echo but nothing more because
theu
do not understand this parameter. As soon as more implementers like
this
parameter it can be proposed for the next version of SRU.

Now we have a specific parameter "onSearchFail". When it is
"x-onSearchFail" our server can respond in its own way. But when we
agree that onSearchFail is a valid parameter lets treat it like that
and
just specify it in SRU/W. We can restrict the possible values to an
agreed list, like 'do scan", "do fuzzy" etc. Private or local values
can
be "x-do whatever" and may be neglected by other servers.

I do not see a reason for extraRequestData when we have defined
onSearchFail as a valid  SRU/W parameter.
I'm afraid we introduce a lot of complexity that will not be used
while
we could also keep it as simple as above. Or am I missing something?

Theo


>>> [log in to unmask] 3-12-03 13:51:38 >>>
> Thanks, but I was looking for the exact use of extraRequestData in
SRU
> and I can only find it for SRW. I'm lost on the relation between the
> x-prefix and extraResponseData.

I hadn't written it because there wasn't any agreement yet on it :)

Currently:

"The profile designer should also include a parameter name beginning
with
'x-' for use with SRU.  The SRW/U protocol will never include an
official
parameter with a name beginning with 'x-'.  It is suggested, but not
required, that the parameter name be x- followed by an identifier for
the
profile, followed by the name of the element.  For example
'x-theo-onSearchFail' for <theo:onSearchFail>.

If the contents of the parameter is an XML structure, then the profile
designer should also specify how to encode this structure for SRU.
This may simply be to escape all of the special characters, but the
designer could also create a string encoding form with rules as to how
to generate the XML in much the same fashion as the relationship
between CQL and XCQL."

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, right?  It's when the server
receives an unknown x- parameter and needs to echo the query back
where
there's no firm consensus?


> Will the information from the above link be copied to the ZING
> webpages? I prefer to have only a single website to point
> our implementors to.

I expect so.  I've incorporated Ray and Jannifer's changes back into
my
own copy, so I can send them all to be posted easily enough.

Rob

--
      ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Nebmedes:  http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager