LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  March 2008

ZNG March 2008

Subject:

Re: Price information in SRU responses

From:

Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:20:54 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (55 lines)

What, _again_?!

Whatever happened to double jeopardy? We must be on about septuple
jeopardy by now.

 _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ When a company calls its PC the `PC', and its DOS `DOS', it comes
as little surprise when it calls its windows system `Windows'.



Theo van Veen writes:
 > Ray,
 >
 > For me the possibility of getting unsollicited data has always been a very important issue. Not allowing it is a real barrier for a lot of innovation. I know that there is an option to specify to accept anything. In my view this should be the default. Let me explain why.
 > 1) we shouldn't worry about thin clients. I use a thin client for testing pruposes that works on my mobile phone. It handles onsollicited data very well.
 > 2) we may rely on system engineers to deal with unsollicited in a responsible way. Many servers have extensions that might be useful for others. Only extensions that are not useful for others should be on request only
 > 3) we should not forget that there are users behind the SRU clients. We can not require users to first select the extensions. That would make the applications for users quite complicated. When a server supports price information - either as extraRecordData or as extra element in the recordData - the user will be more pleased when it is just displayed rather than that he first had to ask for it.
 > 4) as far as extensions to DC are concerned. There are many recordSchemas containing DC plus something extra. Do we really want users to select recordSchema's containing DC or DC plus something extra? My experience is based on federated search and indexing distributed resources. It takes hardly no effort to present extra data or elements. It introduces a lot of complexity when a selection has to be made a priori.
 > 5) we should prevent the need for a priori knowledge: Extension require a priori knowledge
 > 6) the argument that a client wouldn't know what to do with unsollicited data doesn't hold. We use clients that allow the user to attach functions to elements in recordData without us knowing those elements.
 > 7) The SRU extension mechanism is relying so heavily on bilateral knowledge that it is a barrier for local use.
 >
 > My proposal would be the following:
 > 1) introduce a recordSchema dcterms plus extensions (anything, unspecified) called DCX.
 > 2) allow extraRecordData with the restriction that these data can be used by external applications but can also be ingnored. The fact that the extarnal applications have to be changed to deal with these extraRecordData is not a restriction in my view.
 >
 > I know that I raised these points several times before and that there always have been objections but I also realise that the SRU community has changed and that now there may be more support for my proposal.
 >
 > Theo
 >
 > ________________________________
 >
 > From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors on behalf of Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
 > Sent: Fri 3/28/2008 6:36 PM
 > To: [log in to unmask]
 > Subject: Re: Price information in SRU responses
 >
 >
 > From: Theo van Veen <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
 >
 > > I don't remember the arguments.
 >
 >
 > The argument is that if servers are allowed to send unsolicited extra-data then they will overload the client with useless information, a particular burden on thin clients.
 >
 > There is a mechanism for a client to indicate that it is prepared to accept any extra-data that the server wants to send. A client for which information overload is not
 > an issue might avail itself of this feature. See http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/resources/accept.html
 >
 > I don't think this addresses the issue at hand. The client wants price information. The only sensible way I can think of to meet this requirement is via the schema definition. Using the ONIX schema could be the simplest or most expedient short-term approach. Simply providing extensibility within the DC schema does not seem to me to be a very interoperable approach. What namespace would this price element come from? If we wanted to come up with some utility element set and create a namespace for it, I'd be willing to support that, if that seems like a good idea.
 >
 > --Ray
 >

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager