Print

Print


Suppose a server has a default schema, say its DC, and many records
are available in DC, but a few records are not available in DC but
are available in other schemas.

So a client asks for 3  records, gets back record 1 in DC, record 2
in DC, and a surrogate for record 3, because it's not available in
DC. Suppose that client really wants that third record.  What does he
do?  Explain will tell you the default schema, and it may tell you
other supported schemas, but it won't tell you schemas supported for
that record.
Should SRW provide a solution to this scenario?

Perhaps we can develop a simple "record Metadata" schema, RMS, that
would include all the schemas supported for a record, maybe recordId
and date of last update, etc.  Then a client could specify RMS as the
schema, get metadata for the requested records, and then request the
desired record in one of the supported schemas.

Would this be a good idea?

--Ray


"LeVan,Ralph" wrote:

> But (a) is not amenable to explain.  It says that the behavior is
> unpredictable, learn to like it.  I don't.
>
> Ralph
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 10:46 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: multiple schemas
> >
> >
> > "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
> >
> > > I'm unhappy with the opinion that not specifying a schema
> > might result in
> > > records from multiple schemas being returned.  Servers
> > should be expected to
> > > specify their default schema (through explain) and return
> > all records in
> > > that schema when an explicit schema has not been specified.
> >
> > What are the semantics of omitting the schema name in a
> > request? Is it:
> >
> > (a) give me each record in whatever schema is available (or
> > the best, if there
> > is more than one), or;
> > (b) I don't know what's the default schema but give me all
> > records in that
> > schema; or
> > (c) I know what your default schema is; I'm omitting it
> > because I'm lazy. But I
> > want all the records in that schema.
> >
> > If it's (c) then you're right.  (b) doesn't make sense -- it
> > assumes that the
> > client is prepared for multiple schemas so why limit it to
> > one.  If it's (a)
> > then I dissagree.
> >
> > --Ray
> >