I think describing Z39.50 and SRU/SRW in two separate explain
documents is appropriate -- given the fact that search
capabilities offered via Z39.50 can be very different from
search capabilities offered via SRU/SRW.

http://www.loc.gov/z3950/lcdbz3950.xml

http://www.loc.gov/z3950/LCzeerex.xml

My 2 cents.
Larry


On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Mike Taylor wrote:

> > Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:08:34 +0000
> > From: Dr Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
> >>
> >>> In the Z39.50 service you publish the record for the Z39.50
> >>> service in IR-Explain---1. In the SRW/SRU you publish the SRW/U
> >>> record at the base URL.
> >>
> >> Yep. So two explain documents for a SRW/SRU/Z39.50 server that
> >> features exactly the same resource behind it (Z39.50 supports
> >> CQL+XML), due to non-repeatable serverInfo.
> >
> > Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think this will be
> > very common ;) And even if it does become common, it's not
> > outlandish to have one record for Z39.50 and a different one for
> > SRW/U.
>
> Hmm. To represent three closely related services, I would expect
> either to need one record or three. To need two does seem perverse.
>
> I am slowly being persuaded towards multiple <serverInfo>s.
>
> _/|_ _______________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
> )_v__/\ "Fighting drugs is nearly as big a business as pushing them"
> -- Gore Vidal.
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Larry E. Dixson Internet: [log in to unmask]
Network Development and MARC
   Standards Office, LM639
Library of Congress Telephone: (202) 707-5807
Washington, D.C. 20540-4402 Fax: (202) 707-0115