LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  February 2002

ZNG February 2002

Subject:

Re: Betr.: Re: issues list

From:

"LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:39:19 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (70 lines)

Echoing back the query is a great example of something that a thin client
(SRU) would want that an SRW client does not want.  So, expose that data in
an SRU responseSchema.  But there is no place for it in a searchResponse
object.  You don't get to just add new properties to objects whenever you
want to.  (Yes, you can have a string catch-all in the object, but then
we're back to the question of why do SOAP RPC is you didn't want pure
objects.)

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theo van Veen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:27 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Betr.: Re: issues list
>
>
> I think the few extensions that we possibly need do not
> justify two response schemas (RS-1 and RS-2). Are there
> examples of what we need in SRU that we certainly don't want in SRW?
>
> The extensions that I like to have are usable in as well SRU
> and SRW and could be optional anyway. For example returning
> the requesting parameters in the response to keep the
> response selfexplainable.
>
> Theo
>
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 06-02-02 13:58 >>>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 06 February 2002 11:55
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: issues list
> >
> > I don't see how you can kill responseSchema from SRU.  The
> whole point
> of
> > SRU was the clients ability to specify a responseSchema
> whose contents
> > were
> > greater than an SRW response.  If I want a button on the screen that
> says
> > "Next Five Records", then there better be the data in the response
> that I
> > can put behind that button.  Remember, there is no processing of the
> > response, simply reformatting from XML to HTML.
>
> At a guess you'd need the query and base URL in the response and then
> use the XSLT count function to work out the startRecord for the next
> request.
>
> Reread my original proposal since I think you have missed a
> fundamental
> point.
>
> I was not arguing that SRU should return the SRW response but that we
> have an extended schema for SRU which includes SRW plus the additional
> information for this sort of application. Once we've defined this
> extended schema for SRU (lets call this RS-2) do will still need to
> offer the ability to extend this even further.
>
> For simplicity can't we just have RS-1 used in SRW and an
> extension RS-2
> used in SRU and leave it there?
>
> Matthew
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0202&L=ZNG&P=15097
listserv.loc.gov
CC-MAIN-2023-14
51710
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:OZNSYTF67RPOOSIXC2HGHISRTZHAQWZG
<urn:uuid:ab0c18dc-4777-4493-87f6-e9e379a84566>
2023-03-31T04:34:53Z
104.16.55.16
text/html
sha1:UVHY36Q43JNK64RE6TJRCB2V3NRSUPT2
<urn:uuid:8db9265e-8a2a-41c2-ae5a-db476af3fbd2>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0202&L=ZNG&P=15097
response
<urn:uuid:18b2a694-54ad-49c5-b825-feb7449ffd8f>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-14
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for March/April 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-142
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/