Erik Hetzner wrote:
> However, I do feel that it would be very helpful if ZNG
> defined (at least in addition to the SOAP update) a simple,
> HTTP-based, update mechanism. I think that the overwhelming
> success of SRU over SRW indicates that developers find HTTP
> based solutions easier to deal with than SOAP ones.
Agreed. We are re-looking at this. Update was originally cast before
we switched emphasis from SRW to SRU. (My organisation implemented SRU
only from the beginning for search/retrieve)
> > Most update mechanisms are focussed on document updating
> and sharing
> > documents. They miss elmenets that are important to metadata
> > catalogues and repositories such as aligning control numbers,
> > authority linking, linking multiple language versions etc.
> I don't see where these features are defined in this draft.
We will extend the prose to elaborate here.
> > In addition, the focus is on the client having update
> power, whereas
> > with SRU update, the power is more or less shared. The client is
> > making a suggestion and the server ingests it as best suits the
> > database, hence the need for interactive diagnostics and the
> > employment of POST rather than the more specific PUT, etc.
And we'll elaborate the prose here.
Thanks Erik, Ed, Ross & others for this discussion,