As an ILS vendor that is providing Z39.50 services to our customers, we have
heard - and responded to - the need for Z39.50 Updating. We now offer it to
our customers who want it; they can update databases under our control, as
well as other databases that permit it (e.g., OCLC).
For us to move to ZNG - whenever that may be and whatever that might entail
- we would have to offer at least as many services to our customers as
Z39.50 does. Which means that the ability to Update through ZNG is
essential. What we call it is less important than ensuring its
Senior Product Manager, Standards Implementation
The Library Corporation
Inwood, WV 25428
email: [log in to unmask]
From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Matthew J. Dovey
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 4:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Feedback Reqd: Update
I think we need to distinguish here between ZING and SRW.
There was a fairly long debate but the upshot is that we aren't adding
Update to SRW. There are some nomenclature issues to be ironed out, but I
hope we don't call it SRW Update (or Update for SRW) etc.
What we are edging towards is having a family of WebService (lets call that
ZING, but again nomenclature hasn't been resolved), which include SRW and
Update (and possibly others). Each of these could stand alone, but could
also be used together (and combined may eventually provide the same
functionality of Z39.50 over WebService).
There is a question of whether an Update service is really needed (given
that there are other approaches) - I've drafted an initial summary of other
approaches and how they could relate to the Update service discussions at
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Marc Cromme
> Sent: 11 November 2004 08:29
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Feedback Reqd: Update
> Dr Robert Sanderson wrote:
> > Folks,
> > If there was a URL version of the Update operation, would that be
> > desirable, or just an XML over HTTP version (as opposed to SOAP)
> I am getting confused about the objectives of SRW/SRU. I thought it
> was meant as a lightweight web-service based alternative to Z39.50,
> something that should be easy to implement for both servers and
> Now it seems that a new objective creeps in, about administration,
> maintaining, updating and deletion of databases and their content.
> I belive it is better to keep the SRW standard slim and clean, and
> wait for the IT industry to pick it up as it is.
> If a need for DB maintanance arises in practice in future, the SRW
> standard can pick it up then.
> Maybe this proposal is just a little ahead of time ??
> Marc Cromme, cand. polyt, Ph.D
> Senior Developer, Project Manager
> Index Data Aps
> K°bmagergade 43, 2
> 1150 Copenhagen K.
> tel: +45 3341 1000
> fax: +45 3341 0101
> INDEX DATA Means Business
> for Open Source and Open Standards