Thanks, that helps a lot :).

Rob Sanderson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 15:27 +0000, Martin Morrey wrote:
> 
>> I was inspired to ask about this by Rob Sanderson's reference to the 
>> "record metadata context set", 
>> http://srw.cheshire3.org/contextSets/rec/1.1/,  in a response to a 
>> previous post.   I kind of thought Rob would have something to offer on 
>> what appears to be the equivalent "Record Metadata Schema" (RMS), 
>> http://srw.cheshire3.org/schemas/rec/1.0/.  I am specifically interested 
>> in using some the elements defined in the RMS schema in a standard 
>> SRU/SRW response.
> 
> What I need to do is create the real equivalent :)  That schema is the
> equivalent of the rec 1.0 context set from before we (as a
> community/list) hammered on it a lot to get it up to speed with the
> sorts of things that were really needed.
> 
> I'm also more than happy to let someone else produce the actual xsd
> file.
> 
>> The main thing I don't understand is what the relationship is between 
>> the RMS schema, as defined at http://srw.cheshire3.org/schemas/rec/1.0/, 
>> and the "record" part of the standard SRU/SRW result model, 
>> http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/sru-spec.html#resultmodel, if any. 
>> Both have a "record" element, but the similarity seems to end there.
> 
> Yes, that's about it.
> 
> The idea is/was that if you wanted to see the record metadata for an
> object, you could do a search with recordSchema set to the metadata
> schema's identifier -- then the contents of recordData would be an
> instance of the metadata schema.  However the context set and schema are
> out of sync.
> 
> Equally, it would be possible to define an extension to include the
> schema in the extraRecordData section, as you've described already.
> 
> 
>> So, are the data elements in the RMS schema meant to be used:
>> (a) collectively as an alternative to the "record" part of the SRU/SRW 
>> result model
>> (b) individually as extensions to be included in the "extraRecordData" 
>> field of the standard response
>> (c) either of the above
>> (d) none of the above, i.e. something else entirely
> 
> (c)
> 
>> If (a):
>> - what parameter should be used in an SRU/SRW request to require the use 
>> of the RMS schema in the response?
> 
> 	recordSchema=info:srw/schema/2/rec-1.0
> or 
> 	recordSchema=rec
> if that's the assigned short name in the server's explain file.
> 
> 
>> - how should specifically the RMS schema be fitted into the SRU/SRW 
>> result model
> 
> As the contents of recordData:
> 
> <record>
>   <recordPacking>xml</recordPacking>
>   <recordSchema>info:srw/schema/2/rec-1.0</recordSchema>
>   <recordData>
>     <rec:record xmlns:rec="http://srw.o-r-g.org/schemas/rec/1.0">
>       <rec:size>102003</rec:size>
>       ...
>     </rec:record>
>    </recordData>
> </record>
> 
> (should fix that namespace too)
> 
>> If (b):
>> - why does the RMS schema include the "record" element, that already 
>> exists in the standard response format?
> 
>> - what form would the response take with these specific extensions (e.g. 
>> the sample I included in my previous post)?
> 
> Yes. However if the extension said: Please give me any metadata you
> have, then you would want to have some structure to that response rather
> than including it directly in the extraRecordData. So:
> 
>   <extraRecordData>
>     <rec:record xmlns:rec="http://srw.o-r-g.org/schemas/rec/1.0">
>       <rec:size>102003</rec:size>
>       ...
>     </rec:record>
>    </extraRecordData>
> 
> :)
> 
> Rob 


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