Date:         Fri, 30 May 2003 23:20:52 +0100
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Metaresponse
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
              (message from Robert Sanderson on Fri, 30 May 2003 19:34:17 +0100)

> Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 19:34:17 +0100
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > Allowing any URI to identify a record allows for example the
> > database query URI to be different from the full record URI to the
> > extent that they came from totally separate servers, or of a
> > different form e.g. an URN, NBN, DOI.
>
> There's nothing preventing the rec.id from taking the form of a URI.

That's true, technically; but I don't feel that it's in the spirit of
what we normally mean by a unique ID.

> > I agree, record metadata would need to contain an element that meant "this
> > is the persistent URI for this record". I believe it would be better to
> > fetch records on the basis of this element rather than record x in result
> > set y.
>
> Certainly :)
> I don't think that anyone disagrees with this position, it's just how it's
> implemented within SRW.  As I've already argued, we have the ability to
> request records by a persistant unique identifier already, so I don't see
> a need for additional specific parameters.

I agree totally.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Mind you, that's just a pat diagnosis made without first
         obtaining your full medical history" -- Monty Python.

--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/