> should probably be mandatory. There's no spot in the protocol for that
> sort of information, but could we put it in the Explain record? If so,
> where. I'd like separate Institution, Application and Version fields,
> if possible. E.g. <ServerInfo><Institution>OCLC
Already done :)
From the commentary on ZeeRex
The implementation element contains information concerning the underlying
software. It has version and identifier attributes which may be used to
identify particular releases. It may contain one or more title elements
containing a human readable title to describe the server.
<implementation version="1.1" identifier="http://srw.cheshire3.org/">
<title>Cheshire3 Information Retrieval Framework</title.
Shouldn't the Institution be in the 'author' or 'contact' element of
The author element should contain the name of the person or organisation
to be credited with the creation of the database. On the other hand, the
contact element is used to record information on a contact person for the
database. This should include at least a name and some form or address,
either electronic or postal.
Also, didn't we define an extension to allow the implementation to be
returned in the protocol response when the BL brought it up? If not, we
were going to, at least.
> It's just as important for clients to be able to identify themselves.
> I'd appreciate thoughts on how we might do that too.
An extension in extraRequestData?
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. 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