On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Theo van Veen wrote:
> fundamental and I did not realise that my objectives and requirements
> (e.g. metasearch) were so different from the rest of this group. BTW, I

I don't think that the objectives are different, I think the methodology
is different.  I know that I will be using SRW in a distributed
environment, and I don't see any great issues arising because I'm used to
not sending the same query everywhere and expecting to get back the same
results.  I agree with others that this is a naive approach when you don't
control the servers that you're searching, or they don't strictly adhere
to a profile.

> 1) I expected SRU/SRW be used not only for b2b communication but also
> for metasearches with users sitting at the orher side. There may be

I don't think that anyone disagrees.

> 2) Coming back to the hardware store analogy. The store provides
> objects and information on those objects and we have to make a
> distionction between both. When a user goes to a store he doesn't always
> know the right question and has to be guided by
> relevant information. Asking for "type 5 nails" should NOT result in

Yep. This relevant information is also usefully combined in one store
catalogue and every store has the same format for their catalogue and even
the same way to get the catalogue.  This catalogue is, obviously, the
ZeeRex record. Nice, eh? :)

> 3) My idea of compatibilty is not just getting the right diagnostic
> saying "no I can't do that" and I also do not want the server to be
> creative. I do want us as a group to be creative in specifying more well
> defined optional responses so communication does not have to stop when

Optional responses mean just more checking to find out what you've been
returned.  I'm in favour of record id in a surrogate diagnostic, I'm not
in favour of having to check through lots of alternate response types...
this weighs down the protocol with unneeded baggage as the information the
server responds with could be attained in ways that we've already
specified (eg a search request with schema of DC)

Yes it means more transactions.  But that's the correct way, IMO, as
otherwise the server is just returning things which may or may not be
useful, regardless of if it's specified as an alternate response or not.
Just ask for the record again using the record id supplied on the

> 4) We should not use "explain" to allow for holes in the protocol. Of
> to provide target-specific searches. But on the other hand it would
> improve compatibility if there were some basic searches that would
> always work without the need for target-specific searches for the same

This is nothing to do with the protocol.  This is just how the databases
and servers have been configured.  If they have put the name of the car
into dc.title then you can surely get back results on a title search for

So overall what you want is a -profile- not changes to the protocol.


      ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Nebmedes:  telnet: 7777
____/:::::::::::::.                WWW: