Wouldn't this be better in ServerInfo than in DatabaseInfo?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Dr Robert Sanderson
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 9:51 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Server Identification in the Explain Record
> > should probably be mandatory. There's no spot in the protocol for
> > sort of information, but could we put it in the Explain record? If
> > where. I'd like separate Institution, Application and Version
> > if possible. E.g. <ServerInfo><Institution>OCLC
> > /Version></ServerInfo>
> Already done :)
> From the commentary on ZeeRex
> The implementation element contains information concerning the
> software. It has version and identifier attributes which may be used
> identify particular releases. It may contain one or more title
> containing a human readable title to describe the server.
> <implementation version="1.1"
> <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
> to be credited with the creation of the database. On the other hand,
> contact element is used to record information on a contact person for
> database. This should include at least a name and some form or
> 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,
> were going to, at least.
> > It's just as important for clients to be able to identify
> > I'd appreciate thoughts on how we might do that too.
> An extension in extraRequestData?
> ,'/:. 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