Print

Print


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