> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:13:07 +0100
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
> 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)
> Just define new identifiers for each combination of wrapper and wrapped
> Allow multiple record schemas in recordSchema but only allow a single
> wrapper schema, to be specified by the protocol. [As I understand it]
> 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.