 |
 |
We're jumping the gun. The fundamental question is whether it's a good thing to have a fixed response schema or a better thing to allow alternative response schemas. I'm hearing less oposition to the idea of an alternative response schema than a year ago, but I don't think everyone has weighed in. Once we've answered the question, and if the answer is "allow alternative response schemas", then the question is whether it should be a first level parameter or an extension. "x-responseFormat=rss" suggests an extension. I suggest that we would want a first level parameter, i.e. "responseFormat=rss" or responseSchema=rss". We can't do this until 2.0 (I believe an alternative schema would violate version 1.1 / 1.2). Which means that it would be considered as part of the OASIS deliberation. If it is decided in that process that it is a good thing then I'm sure we'd want to make it a normal parameter, not an extension. --Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Morrey" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:22 AM Subject: Re: June 18-19 meeting topics.... RSS > I think having a separate parameter to specify the the schema of the > response would be a good thing. > > I have previously suggested naming this parameter "x-responseFormat", > e.g. x-responseFormat=rss, but perhaps "x-responseSchema" would be more > consistent? > > Martin > > Theo van Veen wrote: > > You're right. I was a little bit too hasty. Sorry. > > I agree that when another response format is requested there are still > > different recordSchemas possible, so a new parameter is needed. In fact > > we did use such a parameter in a previous version of our SRU service for > > server side XSLT transformations. > > > > Theo > > > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > Namens Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress > > Verzonden: vrijdag 15 juni 2007 15:27 > > Aan: [log in to unmask] > > Onderwerp: Re: June 18-19 meeting topics.... RSS > > > >> From: "Theo van Veen" <[log in to unmask]> > >> I know that there are also wishes to return Json as SRU response. It > > is > >> however possible to create this possible by an intermediate service > > without > >> effecting SRU and this might even be better. On the other hand it > > would > >> increase acceptance of SRU if the requested record schema's would > > allow > >> responses like RSS, Json etc. without the SRU-envelope. > >> I'm not offended either by allowing record schema's to cause SRU > > servers > > to > >> return non-SRU responses. I would however discourage the introduction > > of > > yet > >> another parameter if there is already a parameter (recordSchema) that > > we > > can > >> use for this purpose. > > > > Setting aside for the moment the other issues raised by this message, I > > do > > want to point out that recordSchema CANNOT be used for this purpose. > > > > --Ray > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Martin Morrey, Product Director, Intrallect, http://www.intrallect.com > [log in to unmask], Tel: +44 870 234 3933, Fax: +44 1506 505 117 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------