Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes: > A report covering the June 18 meeting (SRU implementor/Ed. Board > meeting) is available at: > http://www.loc.gov:8081/standards/sru/june2007meeting-report.html Thanks, Ray -- and thanks to whoever put together this very comprehensive report. Most of that looks pretty good to me. ... with the exception of this brain-damage: "It was the consensus of the meeting that there should be a parameter (in SRU version 2.0) to specify the requested response schema: SRU, RSS, ATOM, ext." But luckily for everyone who agreed with this idea at the meeting, I am too tired to fight it. One small comment: > Note that this approach, prox/xyz.unit="street", is preferable to > 'Prox/unit=xyz.street'. In the first case, 'unit' is a modifier > define in the xyz context set, and 'street' is a value defined for > that modifier. In the second, 'unit' is a modifier from the cql > context set, with a value defined in a different set. so it's value > would have to be one that is defined in the cql context set. Pairing > a modifier from one set with a value from another is not a good > practice. It's not just "not good practice", it's impossible. Context sets do not contain relation-modifier values at all, just relation-modifier types. In other words, CQL implementations may parse relation modifiers (as they do with indexes) to isolate the prefix and map it to a URI, but they treat modifier values as opaque strings. > Review use of terms "Explain" and "Zeerex"in the 1.2 spec. I'm sure you got this at the meeting, but: Explain is a service, ZeeRex is a format. They are analogous, respectively, to HTTP and HTML. _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk )_v__/\ "istrcmp() -- Naughty but nice! ... Why isn't my program working?" -- Sunstorm the Intestinal.