> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:29:02 +0100
> From: Leif Andresen <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> We have noted a change in profiling with the change of "name in
> front" from SRW to SRU. Notwithstanding the focus on REST web
> service as SRU involves, we see it as very important to keep the
> connection to W3C and the SOAP standard. SOAP web service is defined
> as the Danish e-government basic web service standard - so we need
> SRW.

Hi, Leif, thanks for your interest.  Yes, you're right, SRU has
quietly been "promoted" to first place, due to the much wider take-up.
But there are no plans to deprecate SRW; as you point out, there are
good reasons, political as well as technical, to continue to support
an IR protocol that is built on SOAP.  Matthew is a particular
advocate of SRW and has argued persuasively that it should be included
in the proposed OASIS standardisation.  (And even if it's not included
in _that particular_ standardisation effort, that would certainly not
mean that it was deprecated, and would not preclude its also
standardised separately.)

> CQL can be used both for very simple search and very complicated
> search. Use of SRW/SRU and CQL for more complicated search reflects
> a need in library domain - and I think other domains will meet this
> need over the next years. So we see it as very important that the
> resulting standard can be used both for simple search and
> complicated search in same framework.

I very strongly agree!

> A standard method to describe the service of a server like Explain
> and a service to order a list of words are still of great value.

Do you mean ZeeRex and Scan?

 _/|_	 ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire /
	 Once the flames begin to catch, the wind will blow it higher"
	 -- Peter Gabriel, "Biko"