We're jumping the gun. The fundamental question is whether it's a good thing
to have a fixed response schema or a better thing to allow alternative
response schemas.

I'm hearing less oposition to the idea of an alternative response schema
than a year ago, but I don't think everyone has weighed in.

Once we've answered the question, and if the answer is  "allow alternative
response schemas",  then the question is whether it should be a first level
parameter or an extension.  "x-responseFormat=rss" suggests an extension.  I
suggest that we would want a first level parameter, i.e.
"responseFormat=rss" or responseSchema=rss".

We can't do this until 2.0  (I believe an alternative schema would violate
version 1.1 / 1.2).  Which means that it would be considered as part of the
OASIS deliberation.  If it is decided in that process that it is a good
thing then I'm sure we'd want to make it a normal parameter, not an
extension.

--Ray


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Martin Morrey" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: June 18-19 meeting topics.... RSS


> I think having a separate parameter to specify the the schema of the
> response would be a good thing.
>
> I have previously suggested naming this parameter "x-responseFormat",
> e.g. x-responseFormat=rss, but perhaps "x-responseSchema" would be more
> consistent?
>
> Martin
>
> Theo van Veen wrote:
> > You're right. I was a little bit too hasty. Sorry.
> > I agree that when another response format is requested there are still
> > different recordSchemas possible, so a new parameter is needed. In fact
> > we did use such a parameter in a previous version of our SRU service for
> > server side XSLT transformations.
> >
> > Theo
> >
> >
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Namens Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
> > Verzonden: vrijdag 15 juni 2007 15:27
> > Aan: [log in to unmask]
> > Onderwerp: Re: June 18-19 meeting topics.... RSS
> >
> >> From: "Theo van Veen" <[log in to unmask]>
> >> I know that there are also wishes to return Json as SRU response. It
> > is
> >> however possible to create this possible by an intermediate service
> > without
> >> effecting SRU and this might even be better. On the other hand it
> > would
> >> increase acceptance of SRU if the requested record schema's would
> > allow
> >> responses like RSS, Json etc. without the SRU-envelope.
> >> I'm not offended either by allowing record schema's to cause SRU
> > servers
> > to
> >> return non-SRU responses. I would however discourage the introduction
> > of
> > yet
> >> another parameter if there is already a parameter (recordSchema) that
> > we
> > can
> >> use for this purpose.
> >
> > Setting aside for the moment the other issues raised by this message, I
> > do
> > want to point out that recordSchema CANNOT be used for this purpose.
> >
> > --Ray
>
>
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Morrey, Product Director, Intrallect, http://www.intrallect.com
> [log in to unmask], Tel: +44 870 234 3933, Fax: +44 1506 505 117
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------