Print

Print


I have the impression that there still is a lot of confusion. URI's to address metadata records are different from URI's to adress the digital objects that are described by these metadata records. The first one is part of the metadata profile (e.g. <dc: identifier xsi:type=dcterms:URI>) . The second one can also be part of the metadata profile, but that is to the service provider and data provider to decide on.
Having a special  SRW parameter for recordid (as well in the response as in the URL request) allows a clear distinction between requesting records via SRW and searching via CQL, but maybe wanting that is a matter of taste. 
Having something like <srw:recordid> does not interfere with having metadata about the record as a specific scheme. It is even an advantage to have one recordid for adressing different schemas of the same record.

Theo



>>> [log in to unmask] 06/03 2:20 nm >>>
I've not followed all of turns and twists of this discussion, so here is my na´ve tuppence worth.

You can do this with SRW/SRU 1.0 as is!

You need the digital object servers to return appropriate persistent URLs (PURLS, Handles, OpenURLs etc.) which most do (and if they don't we can't solve that with SRW/SRU!!!). Your central server has to return a metadata format which includes these URLs (Mets, MarcXML, Mods, even DC return such a place holder for this sort of thing). Your client needs to know to follow these URLs for further information

You might want to write this up as an application profile/recommendation for this sort of application, but I can't see any changes to SRU/SRW needed to support this! 

The orthogonal question of whether it should be mandatory for any record to return a (SRW/SRU context) persistent id is probably better answered by considering whether there are any cases where this would not be applicable. My preference is that this sort of behaviour should be better in an application context/profile.

Matthew 

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oldroyd, Bill [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:36 PM
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> 
> Mike,
> 
> Say I have 20 different systems serving digital objects.
> 
> There is a single server indexing these 20 systems, say by crawling or
> harvesting. The server provides a search interface.
> 
> The user performs a search against the search server. The records are
> retrieved from the digial object servers.
> 
> Why would you want to do this ?. Answer - because if you 
> could do it, it
> might allow one to design systems in a different way.
> 
> Bill
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Taylor
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Sent: 02/06/03 12:24
> Subject: Re: Metaresponse
> 
> > Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:55:09 +0100
> > From: "Oldroyd, Bill" <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > > >   http://srw.o-r-g.org:8080/database/?query=rec.id 
> exact "ident1"
> >
> > > Exactly.
> >
> > This could be a unique, persistent URI, but I was asking that any
> > URI could be used to identify the record, not one requiring a stem
> > of the database and command.
> 
> Hi Bill.  I'm struggling to understand what difference this makes to
> anything -- perhaps you could help us with a usage scenario?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>  _/|_    
> _______________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  
> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk 
> )_v__/\  "Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons"
>          -- Popular Mechanics, 1949.
> 
> --
> Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
>         http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/ 
> 
> 
> **************************************************************
> ************
> 
> Now exhibiting at the British Library Galleries:
> 
> Painted Labyrinth : the world of the Lindisfarne Gospels
> 
> Until 28 September 2003.  Admission Free.
> 
> **************************************************************
> ***********
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and 
> may be legally
> privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you 
> are not the
> intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the
> [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be 
> disclosed or
> copied without the sender's consent.
> 
> The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
> author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British 
> Library. The
> British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the
> author.
> 
> **************************************************************
> ***********
> 
>