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 are both out-of-date, I'd like to establish an 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 > http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/service.html > > 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). Alan