On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
>> I think we agreed that Update would be a new
>> "service" rather than an operation of SRW.
> The current proposal is ambiguous -- Update is seen as a service in some
> places and an SRW operation in others. I think this is yet to be resolved.
The proposal at the moment should be considered separate to SRW/U in my
opinion, but with a view that it could easily be co-implemented. Right
now we need comments on the technical merits and failings, as opposed to a
political debate as to how to position it =)
Once we have the service designed and some test implementations done is a
good time to then start to decide how to īmarketī it
Rob
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::. L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
I L L U M I N A T I
|