Date:         Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:28:14 +0200
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Betr.: Re: sort parameter
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

>>> [log in to unmask] 10-07-02 16:05 >>>
>There are a few issues raised by this exchange.

>You're mixing the sort/resultSet model with the present model.

>Addressing the present model (leaving aside sorting for the moment) there is
>the question of whether in a sequence of returned records can two records be
>presented in different schemas.  Obviously so if you include the surrogate
>diagnostic schema, but can one record be in MODS and another in DC?  Yes, if
>the schema parameter is omitted and the first record is available in MODS
>only and the other in DC only.  Suppose the record schema parameter is
>included, and it's MODS?  We haven't answered this but I suspect the answer
>is you get a surrogate diagnostic for the one that's not available in MODS.
>
>Finally, the sort model you quote no longer applies, we discarded it several
>weeks ago.  We're not sorting result sets according to a schema, but rather
>by abstract names.
>
>--Ray

This reminds me on a question which was not answered regarding different record schemas for the same records. Do we allow multiple schemas for a single record in a single reponse? This would imply that you need information on the postion of those records within the resultset.

Theo