Sorry, I realise I gave the wrong URL for the Record Metadata Schema, 
what I meant was http://srw.cheshire3.org/schemas/rec/1.0/.

I am trying to reconcile the example given at the bottom of this page, 
with the examples in http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/extra-data.html 
and  http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/sru-spec.html#resultmodel

At a guess, an example using some of the extra "history" fields in the 
RMS might look like this:

<record>
   <recordSchema>info:srw/schema/1/dc-v1.1</recordSchema>
   <recordPacking>xml</recordPacking>
   <recordData>
      <srw_dc:dc>
         <dc:title>Thisis a Sample Record</dc:title>
      </srw_dc:dc>
   </recordData>
   <recordPosition>1</recordPosition>
   <extraRecordData>
      <rec:history xmlns:rec="http://srw.o-r-g.org/schemas/rec/1.0/">
         <rec:created>2002-12-09T12:00:00</rec:created>
         <rec:lastModified>2002-12-09T12:30:00</rec:lastModified>
      </rec:history>
   </extraRecordData>
</record>

The use of "rec" as the namespace prefix is arbitary, the value of the 
namespace, "http://srw.o-r-g.org/schemas/rec/1.0/", is specified by the 
RMS document.

However, I don't think the example above would validate against the 
actual XML Schema for RMS, 
http://srw.cheshire3.org/schemas/rec/1.0/rec.xsd, which requires the RMS 
fields are contained directly within a root "record" element, not 
"extraRecordData".

Hope that makes some kind of sense!

Martin


Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> Martin -- If what you're trying to do is include record level metadata 
> with a response record it's a fairly straightforward process.   Use the 
> extraRecordData parameter which you'll see described in the parameter 
> table in the result set model section (that you cited), more fully 
> described at http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/extra-data.html.
>  
> --Ray
> 
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Martin Morrey <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:54 AM
>     *Subject:* Record Metadata Schema (was Re: "collection" context set)
> 
>     I think we could also make use of elements from the Record Metadata
>     Schema, http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/sru-spec.html#resultmodel
> 
>     Do you have any advice on how to combine elements from the RMS with the
>     standard SRU Result model,
>     http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/sru-spec.html#resultmodel?
> 
>     At first glance, its not quite clear to me what the relationship
>     between
>     these two things is.
> 
>     Many thanks,
> 
>     Martin
> 
>     Rob Sanderson wrote:
>      > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 12:28 +0000, Martin Morrey wrote:
>      >> Rob Sanderson wrote:
>      >>>> The aim of Intrallect's "collection" context set is to allow
>     queries to
>      >>>> be limited to sub-collections within a repository. 
>      >
>      >>> How would that differ from 
>      >>> collectionName and collectionIdentifier in the record metadata
>     context
>      >>> set?
>      >
>      >> I think it is the same thing.  Glad I asked!
>      >
>      > I think so too :)
>      >
>      > Rob
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Martin Morrey, Product Director, Intrallect, http://www.intrallect.com
>     [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>, Tel: +44
>     870 234 3933, Fax: +44 1506 505 117
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Morrey, Product Director, Intrallect, http://www.intrallect.com
[log in to unmask], Tel: +44 870 234 3933, Fax: +44 1506 505 117
----------------------------------------------------------------------