"LeVan,Ralph" wrote:

> > Did we agree that there would be a response schema as opposed
> > to a wsdl
> > definition?  Could someone summarize what we decided?
> The wsdl defines the response in SRW.

But it doesn't. Not the one at
which is the current file (isn't it?)  It just points to a schema.

Can't the wsdl define the response rather than point to a schema?

Is the reason that the wsdl doesn't do that now, that we thought there would be
more than one possible response format, and wsdl can't handle that?  If that's
the reason, and if we now agree that there won't be more than one response
format (do we agree?) then can we now define the response in the wsdl and get
rid of rs1?