LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


ZNG@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


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  February 2014

ZNG February 2014

Subject:

Antw: SRU recordPacking and JSON

From:

Jörg Prante <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:53:19 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (158 lines)

From what I understand, "recordPacking" was trying to carry information
of what Z39.50 OIDs did in 1.2.840.10003.5.109.x
http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/defns/oids.html

But today, is there any SRU service which is not working over HTTP (I
do not mean Z39.50 over SRU)?

There is the MIME type application/sru+xml
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6207 which is also meant for use in
the HTTP header "Accept" for content negotation.

I think it's time for SRU / SearchRetrieve to fully embrace HTTP
content negotiation, and REST - I mean, most importantly, the HTTP
status codes. Therefore, I would welcome deprecating the parameter
"recordPacking", and also "recordSchema".

If content negotiation is not sufficient, it could be an option to use
HTTP headers for additional hinting, for XML schemas, bibliographic
field formats etc. HTTP headers could also carry Z39.50 OIDs in their
full extent, by preceding the header name with something like
"X-Z3950-...", or optional SRU parameters, in "X-SRU-..."

Here's my proposal. This is an SRU request for XML

GET /sru/...
Host: localhost
Accept: application/sru+xml
->
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/sru+xml

and this is for JSON

GET /sru/...
Host: localhost
Accept: application/sru+json
->
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/sru+json

or even, with HTTP content negotiation, both are possible:

GET /sru/...
Host: localhost
Accept: application/sru+xml,application/sru+json
->
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/sru+xml

And also something for RDF serializations, because Bibframe is coming
close.

I have only JSON-LD, so over the SRU endpoint, I would also like to
perform RESTful actions on RDF graphs, like

GET /sru/...
Host: localhost
Accept: application/ld+json
->
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/ld+json

Such requests lack any information about "recordSchema",
"recordPacking", OIDs, Z39.50, simply because there is none such
information. If it was, it's all encoded in the JSON-LD.

HTTP GET requests are stateless. So I'd like to drop SRU parameter
"resultSetTTL". Was this ever used, clients enforcing servers to keep
result sets, for days or weeks, or even longer? If so, it could be
replaced by URL- or cookie-based session life times, under control of
the server.

Best,

Jörg


>>> "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]> schrieb am 17.02.2014 um 21.27 Uhr
in Nachricht
<[log in to unmask]>:
> I'm playing around with JSON and SRU. My server has pretty decent
support
> for content negotiation and I've started explaining to it how to
handle
> requests for JSON.
>
>
http://rdap02pxdu.dev.oclc.org:8080/viaf/search?query=local.names+all+%22ral
> ph%20levan%22&httpAccept=application/json
>
> That's a simple name search, with a request that the response be in
JSON.
> You'll notice that the recordPacking is "xml", which is appropriate,
because
> the records are returned as XML. But, as far as JSON is concerned,
what I
> returned was a string. (The value of recordData in JSON is of type
string.)
> What happens if I want to return JSON records? How do I even ask for
JSON
> records?
>
> Right now, to return JSON records I have to say that the
recordPacking is
> "string" (because it sure isn't "xml") and pick a recordSchema of
JSON
> (because there's no other place to say you want JSON.
>
http://rdap02pxdu.dev.oclc.org:8080/viaf/search?query=local.names+all+%22ral
>
ph%20levan%22&recordPacking=string&recordSchema=JSON&httpAccept=application/json
>
>
> I think the recordPacking was intended to be the mimeType of the
record, as
> opposed to the httpAccept, which is the mimeType of the response. I
think
> the recordSchema was intended to talk about the logical content of
the
> record, not the physical format. In my particular case, I already
have
> multiple schemas that I want to return my data in (LinkedData,
Marc21,
> VIAFCluster), regardless of the mimeType that the record is returned
in.
>
> My suggestion is that we expand the meaning of recordPacking to mean

> mimeType of the recordData and grandfather in the special values of
"string"
> to mean "text/plain" and "xml" to mean "text/xml". If you return
text/plain
> records in a text/xml response, it is up to the application to make
the
> records safe in the XML (meaning escaping the appropriate characters
in the
> string.) That same would be expected in JSON (where the string would
just
> get quotes around it.)
>
> Does this seem sensible? Is anyone else doing anything like this?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ralph




--
Jörg Prante
hbz, Gruppe Portale
- Digitale Bibliothek und Online-Fernleihe -
Postfach 270451, 50510 Köln, Deutschland
Telefon +49-221-40075-156, Fax +49-221-40075-190
[log in to unmask]
http://www.hbz-nrw.de

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