Print

Print


This seems fine to me. --Ray

Matthew Dovey wrote:

> The way I see surrogate diagnostics working in SRW is as follows:
>
> We have one XML format for diagnostic
> This can be used in the response message as a non-surrogate.
> This XML format can be used as though it were a record schema in the record
> list - i.e. the record list could look like
>
> Record (schema=MODS)
>   Data
>
> Record (schema=MODS)
>   Data
>
> Record (schema=OAIMarc)
>   Data
>
> Record (schema=DIAGNOSTIC)
>   Data
>
> Record (schema=MODS)
>   Data
>
> Etc. (clearly with appropriate XML wrapping).
>
> That seems fairly clean to me?
>
> Matthew
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 7:49 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: result set position
> >
> > Yes, at least I do.
> >
> > We can come to some sort agreement on the structure and content of the
> > surrogate to fix your bad feelings.  But I like have the placeholder.  It
> > makes life much simpler when records are going away dynamically.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 2:33 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: result set position
> > >
> > >
> > > "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why not a surrogate diagnostic in the middle of the
> > > records?  I like them.
> > >
> > > It's caused complexity for Z39.50 particularly in the ASN.1.
> > > I suspect it
> > > would cause similar complexity in the XML.  You have a
> > > sequence of records,
> > > each is a  "response record" which is either a "retrieval record" or a
> > > "surrogate diagnostic".  The retrieval record is accompanied
> > > by a record
> > > syntax (for srw, a record schema) and the surrogate
> > > diagnostic has its own
> > > funny format.
> > >
> > > Do we want this in srw?
> > >
> > > --Ray
> > >