> OK, that's good enough for me. Theo and Peter have independently run
> into the same problem. I move that the "one endpoint, one database"
> simplification that we made when designing SRW/U has proven itself an
> _over_ simplification, and that we should fix the core protocol so
> that it includes a way to specify a search in multiple databases, just
> like Z39.50. Hacks with extensions and funny CQL indexes don't convey
> the impression of a serious protocol.
I disagree. The amount of complexity in Z39.50 for searching multiple
databases at once was a serious impediment to implementation, and the same
will apply to SRW. SRW is a protocol to search ONE database. If the
metasearch environment want a protocol to search more than one database
which extends SRW, then we should do our best to ensure that comes about,
but we shouldn't make the protocol any more complicated at this stage.
Creeping Featurism is really really to be avoided IMO and multiple
databases adds a LOT of extra trouble.
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Dept. of Computer Science, Room 805
,'---/::::::::::. University of Liverpool
I L L U M I N A T I Cheshire3 IR System: http://www.cheshire3.org/