As to the process question that Ed raises: We are using procedures roughly
based on the Z39.50 Maintenance Agency procedures, although they haven't
been codified for SRU and probably will not be until we get through the
OASIS process. 

Look at http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/proced2.html. Even these are a bit
out-of-date but they give you an idea of the procedures and the  philosophy
behind them. Most of these applied to the work done between the 1995 version
and 2000. All the clarifications, defect corrections, etc were rolled into
the latter version.  For example see:

http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/clarify/clarify.html, a list of 60 or so
clarifications all rolled in. Or
http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/wisdom/wisdom.html for commentaries. Etc.
We'll develop something like this (much simpler though) for maintenance of
SRU when we get to version 2.0. 


--Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Ed Summers
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 7:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Record Metadata Schema

On 5/9/07, Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Yes.  The point of this extension is that it's an extension, intended 
> in part to serve a model of what extensions should look like.  If we 
> throw our hands up and change the core specifications every time an 
> extension comes along, we're admitting that we got the extension 
> mechanism wrong.

So if we're testing the waters of SRU extensions I think what is lacking
here is a process more than any technical capability. I'm thinking something
like the following could work:

1. someone suggests the extension on sru-implementors 2. someone drafts the
proposed extension and make it available on the web 3. more discussion on
sru-implementors about draft 4. someone edits draft appropriately 5. a group
votes (not sure who) 6. publish draft (or not)

Does something like this already exist? Or is it just:

1. try to convince someone who controls the web pages 2. publish

I only bring this up because I feel like I really need 2 to understand the
current discussion.

//Ed