>> <explain>
>>   <serverInfo protocol="SRW/U">
>>     <host>a.b.c</host>
>>   </serverInfo>
>>   <serverInfo protocol="FTP">
>>     <host>d.e.f</host>
>>   </serverInfo>
>> </explain>
>> Would be a perfectly legal, if semantically impossible, Zeerex record.

>> Zeerex supports more than just Z39.50 and SRW/U, and it has always taken
>> the position that one record represents one type of interface to one
>> database.
> Except for SRW/U?
> If you can announce the two transports SRW / SRU in one protocol
> attribute, that solves it. But, IMHO not an elegant solution.

Yes, because it's envisaged that the only difference will be that the
parameters are accepted in a different way.
But yes, I agree that it's not as elegant as it could be.

>> 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.

Rob


       ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
   ,'--/::(@)::.      Dept. of Computer Science, Room 805
,'---/::::::::::.    University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::.  L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
I L L U M I N A T I