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,

Janifer