I have revised the proposal (removed the simple form), and it is now listed
on the home page, comments solicited by June 5.
(Ralph, I can add a word or two about explain implications. But (I'm
embarassed to say) I can't find an explain schema. Where is it? It seems
to me that the schema does not provide support to list supported extensions,
but I'm not sure about that. )
----- Original Message -----
From: "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: Revised record metadata proposal
This looks fine to me Ray. I'd like to see some discussion of the
Explain implications for implementors of the extension.
From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Revised record metadata proposal
I have revised the record metadata proposal:
- This references a new record metadata schema, called "rmd". We
decided during this discussion that "rec" was a misleading name, so I
renamed it. It can be based on rec or rewritten. We'll discuss this
among the Ed. Board.
- This page describes both how to retrieve record metadata the
"conventional" way, and by extension, as we discussed. The
"conventional" discussion is included for completeness.
- Two extensions are defined. One is the simple extension with no
parameter value that assumes the default schema (rmd) and the second
allows a schema name to be supplied. This is a compromise, as it is
clear that there are two postions on this and that the advocates on both
sides are pretty well dug in. In any case there is a justification
supplied for two extension ("Reason for two extentions") which I think
makes a compelling argument.