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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  September 2006

ZNG September 2006

Subject:

Re: New draft of Record Update

From:

Christophe Dupriez <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:48:59 +0200

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (87 lines) , christophe.dupriez.vcf (18 lines)

Dear Mr.Denenberg,

Sorry to arrive with comments not based on previous discussion
as I am a newcomer to Zing.

If I understand well:
1) Collaboration: the protocol does not provide a lock or a 
checkout/checkin system.
    I understand this kind of rigid system may not be suited to 
independant institutions
    working together.
2) Versions: each document contains an history of its updates

Suggestions:
1) Collaboration could be designed by analyzing best practices in the 
current workflow
    of institution. For example:
    a) cataloging identification information (often before buying the 
document)
    b) cataloging descriptive information
    c) indexation by authorities (collectivities, conferences, etc.)
    d) abstract
    e) indexation by subjects
 * Don't you think that the SRU Update should take into account the 
"additive" nature
   of indexation and abstracting (the record is not updated but enriched) ?
 * Don't you think that different stages could be implemented: addition 
or replacement
   proposal for a specific occurrence of a field, approval by the record 
owner(s) ?
2) Collaboration could be supported by different functions:
    a) Users could subscribe to a record ("I would like to be advised if 
this record changes")
        A special retrieval index would provide the list of subscribed 
record for a given user
       modified since...
    b) Users could subscribe to a record for a given action (update, 
adding or replacing
        specific occurrences in a field of a given record): any updater 
could check if
        someone is registered for an action on the record he(she) wants 
to update.
    c) Suggestions in terms of replacement, suppression or addition 
could be recorded
        for acceptance or rejection by record "masters".
 (from my point of view, it is clear that the concept of "User" and 
"Priviledge" have to
  be managed on the server side or in a collaborative mechanism like 
Athens that may
  be a nice complement to SRU.  So, for now, the updates privileges are 
set by
  the "masters of the server")

I am looking to all the aspects of the SRU protocols because I want to 
make it
the heart of the new Belgium Poison Center information systems: medical 
doctors
are answering to emergency calls and need to access information in 
multiple databases
in an unique and POWERFUL (I did not found any up to now: any suggestion?)
user interface.
The internal databases would be searched AND updated, so all aspect of SRU
are pertinent.

I would like only to insist on the fact that SRU is an application protocol.
It may not be too dependent of work flow practices but it must, at least,
take into account the support the good ones are needing now.

Wishing you a very nice day,

Christophe Dupriez

Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress a écrit :
> A new draft of the Record Update protocol has been developed by the SRU
> Editorial Board.
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/record-update
>
> Please review and comment by October 12.
>
> --Ray Denenberg
>
>
>
>   


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