On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 05:21:34PM -0400, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> Until we nail down and define a little better the
> SRW request and response parameters,  rather than
> updating the wsdl and/or response schema, which
> are both out-of-date, I'd like to establish an
> informal service definition as a temporary working
> document.
> Please see and comment on
> I haven't put any links to this yet but I will if
> nobody thinks it is terribly off-base.
> --Ray

I a goal is to keep SRU and SRW similar, then I think this is a good idea.
Having a simple list of SRU like parameters can easily be encoded into
a SOAP request later. The response can be a more complex nested structure
as you indicated.

One area (that I just posted on) that is not covered is how to get
records from a previous result set. Theo proposed another parameter
resultSetId which is the set to get it from. I had proposed a resultSetId
which is what name to give to the result set (and to refer to previous
sets put it in the query as 'set=name'. If CQL should be able to refer
to previous result set names, I prefer my solution. If CQL should not
be able to refer to previous result set names, I prefer Theo's proposal.

So after the decision of whether CQL should be able to refer to previous
queries or not, I think there will need to be a resultSetId added to the]
request parameters (the definition of which depends on the CQL decision).