Dr Robert Sanderson wrote:
>>> It certainly will be impossible given a URL as a start. Now, well need
>>> URL + PROTOCOL.
>> At present we only need one URL since both SRU and SRW must support the
>> GET form of Explain (even though there is a SOAP based form).
> Well, that too. :) And no one has proposed that this be dropped, so there
> is (still) no issue.
> Quoth the base profile:
> "The Explain record describing the server must be available at the base
> URL and also via the 'explain' operation."
Maybe the intention of the paragraph above is what Matthew says. But I
don't see it (that GET explain is mandatory). Maybe it should be rewritten.
It helps a bit. But does not change the fact that as things progress SRW
are a group of related protocols based on XML and CQL which uses
different transports that must be profiled.
>> My proposal to extend the Explain service to return multiple Explain
>> records was to maintain this single URL for bootstrap even if we added
>> SRU POST and even if the SRU (GET/POST) and SRW services were on
>> different endpoints (which may in turn be on different endpoints to the
>> single bootstrap URL).
IMHO, the explain should be able say all supported transports for the
database/resource (Z39.50 included).
> Again, if you want links to related services of any protocol at any URL,
> put them in <links>.
Links in explain (possible?) or HTML?
> ,'/:. 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