 |
 |
I agree -- we need to get some of these content people to the table (or the list) for a discussion of requirements. --Sebastian At 15:59 03-06-2003 +0100, Matthew J. Dovey wrote: >I'd be in favour of seeing the requirements first - if it really is just >to limit the number of sockets connects a client may make to a single >server then a low level approach might be more applicable (e.g. SOAP >over HTTP 1.1; a MultipleSRWRequest which contains in it a array of >SearchRetrieveRequests etc.). Also whether this is something that would >be required to be implemented in SRU as well as SRW. > >Matthew > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:04 PM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > > > > One person at the NISO meeting suggested that you should be > > able to send > > > different queries to different logical databases.. however, > > I'm not at all > > > sure that this requirement is universal, and it would seem > > to me to add > > > unnecessary complexity. > > > > Shall we shelve the multiple database issue until the NISO > > group come up > > with a specific list of requirements? Is this reasonable for > > us to expect > > them to actually do? > > > > Rob > > > > -- > > ,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask]) > > ,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/ > > ,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142 > > ,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: > > liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777 > > ____/:::::::::::::. WWW: > > http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/ > > I L L U M I N A T I > > > > -- Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/> Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101