LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  February 2006

ZNG February 2006

Subject:

Re: srw/u question: aggregation in scan response

From:

Rob Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Wed, 8 Feb 2006 17:47:43 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (70 lines)

Sorry to 'Me Too', but ...

On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 17:34 +0000, Mike Taylor wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:54:09 -0500
> > From: Will Sexton <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > SRW/U specifies an optional 'numberOfRecords' sub-parameter in the
> > response for a scan operation. I'm wondering how best to aggregate
> > the 'numberOfRecords' data according to different fields.
> >
> > I can't find anything built into the specification that explicitly
> > allows this kind of kind of aggregation. Is it something one would
> > do with an 'extraTermData' extension, similar to the 'requestedTerm'
> > example?
>
> Yes, precisely.

Absolutely. This is exactly the scenario that extensions were designed
for.

As a strawman, you could have something like:


<term>
  <value>fish</value>
  <numberOfRecords>126</numberOfRecords>
  ...
  <extraTermData>
    <duke:termDivisions>
      <duke:division>
        <duke:identifier>Collection-Identifier-1</duke:identifier>
        <duke:numberOfRecords>6</duke:numberOfRecords>
      </duke:division>
      <duke:division> ... </duke:division>
      ...
    </duke:termDivisions>
  </extraTermData>
</term>

    

> > Any advice is appreciated, including thoughts on the general
> > question of the advisability of hacking on the SRW/U spec to meet
> > local needs.
>
> Depends what you mean by "hacking on" the spec. You absolutely
> shouldn't _change_ anything in the spec for your local implementation;
> but it's totally reasonable to _add_ extensions within the extension
> framework. Positively encouraged, even.

My advice would be to come up with all of the use cases you want to
cover first. Then mock up some XML like the above and pitch it back
here if you want any comments :) Or, if you know all of the things you
want to do, write it up and we can help come up with a possible
extension. Then we can put it up on the list of registered extensions
and hopefully more people will implement it.

The one last thing to note is that the client software has to request
the use of the extension, the server can't arbitrarily decide to return
it. It's trivial to ask for (just put another param in the request), but
it has to be done.

Rob

--
Dr Robert Sanderson
Dept of Computer Science, University of Liverpool
Home: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~azaroth/
Cheshire: http://www.cheshire3.org/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager