 |
 |
There's nothing to object to in this proposal. I'm looking forward to the details. Ralph > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:20 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: srw futures > > > Let's talk about the near- and not-so-near-term > future of SRW. > > I suggest we consider a meeting in August. One > agenda item could be to finalize 1.1 (which is > supposed to be ready 6-9 month after 1.0, which > was end-of-November; 9 months would be August). > We may be able to do that without a meeting, or > maybe not; the meeting I have in mind would be > larger in scope (but could include finalizing 1.1 > if we need a meeting to do that). > > Some of us are looking at a possible larger (open) > meeting sometime around October, and the August > meeting would be preliminary to that. Let's call > the October meeting a ZIG meeting for the sake of > this discussion. (It would be a reformulation of > the ZIG, with a new name, and that's about all I'm > prepared to say on that, at this point.) There is > some ZIG business on the table and that would be > part of the agenda, as there hasn't been a ZIG > meeting since April 2002. I expect we would also > begin to look critically at migrating some of the > Z39.50 functionality towards SRW or into other new > web services. And we want to determine the > metasearch requirements so that we can accomodate > them in Z39.50 or SRW (or new services). > > The August meeting would be a small (closed) > group, 2 days -- day 1 SRW implementors only, day > 2 to add a few of the metasearch players -- > database aggregators, content providers, providers > of protocol applications (e.g. OAI). Day 1 we > would spend some time formulating issues to take > up with the metasearch folks on day 2. > > We need to have 1.1 in place, along with > implementations or demos, in order to establish > credibility with the metasearch folks. I'm going > to begin to bring the implementor page up-to-date, > and ask people to provide links to servers, demos, > etc. Should we add a separate page for SRW > servers? (And SRU servers?) With Z39.50, there is > an implementor page and a separate server page. > > Please post your thoughts on all of this. > > (There's been recent talk about opening up this > list, and I'm planning to do it, but I'll wait > awhile, until we can get some of this discussion > out of the way.) > > --Ray >