At Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:02:45 +0000,
Rob Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> To add to Janifer's reply...

Thanks, Rob.
> In order to create a full over-the-wire remote information system
> management protocol, there's a lot more actions required than just
> create, replace, delete.  For example, index/unindex, cluster,
> classify, transform, etc. etc.  For this, you need a lot more than
> the simple http verbs.

There is again no reason why you cannot define new HTTP methods if you
find that they are necessary. See

On the other hand, I can easily imagine the following session, in
which a record is added to an index.

POST /index
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded


200 OK
Content-Type: application/xml


> I agree that there are existing update mechanisms, and if APP (for
> example, which as Ed pointed out didn't exist when we first looked
> at Update) could fulfill the requirements, then re-inventing the
> wheel, or even trying to compete, would be absolutely the wrong
> thing to do.  But I don't know if our community has enough traction
> to get the necessary changes made, in that regards?  I'd welcome
> further comments on this approach :)

Yes, the APP has made a great deal of forward progress in defining a
reasonably simple HTTP based API. A great deal of APP work has gone
into defining a schema for describing ‘collections’ & ‘workspaces’ of
weblogs, little of which has any application for SRU, so I’m not sure
that adopting the APP would be necessarily worthwhile (SRU could
probably use about 1/4 of the total text of the latest draft).

This approach is gaining rapid traction. Google’s has adopted it for
their Gdata set of APIs, Amazon has adopted it for S3 (though they
have a SOAP translation), and no doubt many others.

Erik Hetzner

Erik Hetzner
California Digital Library