Feedback on SRU 1.2 proposals:
- For level 0 conformance I would prefer to let it be the clients
responsibility not to send unsupported queries. Level 0 should lower the
implementation barrier and the requirement that a diagnostic is returned
for unsupported queries requires the query to be parsed only for the
diagnostics and not for functionality.
- I would prefer the exchoed request to be very strongly recommended to
allow clients to rely on it. I found that the use of Mozilla extensions
that support SRU queries can become quite powerful when some context
information can be "stored" in the response via the echoed request data.
I agree with the other proposals as far as they have been described.
I have an additional proposal:
I expect that the availability of recordSchema's can be record
specific. An optional field indicating for a record the possible
recordSchema's would allow the client to request the right recordSchema.
As nextRecordPosition is eliminated the use of recordPosition should be
recommended very strongly. Besides that it makes it easier for clients
to handle situations that a record is skipped for example because it is
not available in the right recordShcema.
>>> [log in to unmask] 27-05-2005 20:29 >>>
A list of proposed changes to SRW/SRU/CQL to be applied to the next
either 1.2 or 2.0, is available at:
These proposals have been developed by the SRW Editoral Board. Several
still under discussion, and not all are well-developed yet. We would
feedback on these, comments and any other suggestions, and would like
have substantive discussion at the June meeting.