> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:13:07 +0100
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Rob:
> ---
> Modify recordSchema semantics to allow multiple schema identifiers/names.
> If multiple schemas are given:
> a)  The first MUST be a wrapper schema, the rest are schemas to include.
>     If the first isn't then it's an error.  (Ray)
> b)  If the first is not a wrapper schema, then it's a choice of schema
>     (as per one of the current extensions)  (Rob)
>
> Mike:
> ----
> Just define new identifiers for each combination of wrapper and wrapped
> schema.
>
> Theo:
> ----
> Allow multiple record schemas in recordSchema but only allow a single
> wrapper schema, to be specified by the protocol.  [As I understand it]
>
> Matthew:
> -------
> Allow compound schemas to be identified in a new nested XML structure in
> SRW, and map that structure into a set of parameters in SRU.
>
> [...]
> Bill: If you require a record in multiple recordSchemas a separate
> transaction to obtain the record in each recordSchema.

I remember Dilbert's PHB triumphgantly proclaiming, "Let's do _both_!"

Let's do _all five_!

(Alternatively, my revised recommendation is: forget it.)

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it"
         -- Attributed to an anonymous senior US military officer.