> But I feel I need to raise this issue, that I think we need to consider
> carefully. There was a point (ten years ago) in the development of Z39.50
> where we introduced eSpec and it changed our whole way of thinking. We're
> at an analogous point.
> I don't want us to do similar, elaborate modelling as we did in Z39.50. But
> the fact is that we are, implicitly, modeling element selection. And the
> question is: do we want our record schema parameter to be (1) the abstract
> schema for purpose of record selection, or (2) the schema that we want used
> for transfer of records in the response.
> Z39.50 uses the first approach. Your approach is (2). If we want our model
> to be compatible with Z39.50's, I think we want to put the real schema in
> the schema parameter on the request, the xPath schema in the response, and
> drop the rule that they have to be the same.
I think I want to sleep on this before responding. :)
Rob
--
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I
