Print

Print


>>> [log in to unmask] 10-08-2005 0:29 >>>
>
>However, others may have a different view (e.g. Mike wasn't too happy
>with the record, rec example I gave). If we do need to be able to
handle
>aggregate schemas then as Ray indicated, I believe we need to revise
the
>parameters for requesting recordSchemas rather than overload the
>existing one.
>

Agreed. Let's formulate a proposal but only add it to a new SRU version
when it is actually being implemented by someone.

I would propose for the request to have space or plus sign separated
recordSchema's. For a generic wrapper there are lots of possibilities. I
give some suggestions but there may be better ones. I also like Bill's
RDF suggestion, but only if the server is allowed to choose between RDF
and a generic wrapper.

Suggestion 1:
<srw:recordData>
<srw:container name="dc">
  ...
</srw:container>
<srw:container name="rec">
  ...
</srw:container>
</srw:recordData>

Suggestion 2 :
<srw:record>
<srw:recordData recordSchema="dc">
<srw:dc>
  ...
</srw:dc>
</srw:recordData>
<srw:recordData recordSchema="marcxml">
<marc:record>
  ...
</marc:record>
</srw:recordData>
</srw:record>

Theo