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:

Rob Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:20:51 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (111 lines)

On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 09:48 +0200, Christophe Dupriez wrote:
> Sorry to arrive with comments not based on previous discussion
> as I am a newcomer to Zing.

First appearances are at least as important, if not more so, than the
comments of someone who has followed things all the way through :)


> 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.

Locking or other concurrent editing is profile dependent in this
context.  For example, you could implement a locking system either by
setting a flag on the record's metadata before editing it as a user
action, the server could set a lock whenever any record is checked out,
or the user could request that the server set a lock using an
extraRequestData field.

Note that there is a diagnostic specifically pertaining to locking --
number 52.  It's not that we haven't thought of it, it's that we can't
mandate it for all implementations, especially as there are (arguably
better) alternatives such as CVS like systems.

> 2) Versions: each document contains an history of its updates

Optionally.  recordVersions is always optional in SRU Update because
some systems simply may not record any sort of history or versioning
information.

Versioning is also a simple way to avoid locking -- check that the
version of the record being submitted is the same as the version in the
server. If not, reject the submission.


> Suggestions:
> 1) Collaboration could be designed by analyzing best practices in the 
> current workflow of institution.

Absolutely.  We hope that once there are some implementations being
used, this sort of recommended best practice document will come out of
the community.


>  * 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) ?

This seems like a use case rather than a protocol decision to me.  It
also looks like a use case that is supported.

To take a java example, JSR170 has no real concept of 'record'.  It
would be very easy to layer Update over JSR170 by using the path to the
node as the record identifier.

Equally, the record identifier could include an XPath to a node within
the record to be changed.  Or in extraData.


>  * 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) ?

The approval to change could be implemented using additional metadata
flags and/or versions.  For example, you submit a proposed change and
the system creates a branch for the record.  If the moderator approves
the change, then your branch becomes the main trunk.


> 2) Collaboration could be supported by different functions:

Yes, but these would be outside of the scope of the protocol which just
handles update.



>     a) Users could subscribe to a record ("I would like to be advised if 
> this record changes")
>    b) Users could subscribe to a record for a given action 


That seems like a search oriented task, rather than a maintenance task.
Perhaps an extension for SRU, where it could be tied to a search.
For example:

query: rec.identifier = 10245
extraData: setQueryAlert=email

(or something like that)

>     c) Suggestions in terms of replacement, suppression or addition 
> could be recorded
>         for acceptance or rejection by record "masters".

I think this can be done already, as above.


Hope that helps :)

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