- From: Matthew Dovey <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:26:33 +0100
- To: "Sebastian Hammer" <quinn@indexdata.dk>, "Robert Sanderson" <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk>
- Cc: <www-zig@w3.org>
> > > In order to model the Z39.50 abstraction in XML terms, you actually > need > > > two XML structures - one containing the XML nodes used during the > > > search, the second using the nodes use during the present and some > > > However, XPath also specifies not only the query but also the > > > information returned i.e. also forms the role of the e-specs during a > > > >Right. Or if you wanted to search a record encoded in XML but return it > >in GRS1, MARC, SUTRS etc, then the second part would get really get messy > >:) > > Actually, I would very much like to see a new Espec (Espec-X ?) which > allows you to give SimpleElement requests using XPATH path statements as > opposed to the GRS-centric model currently assumed by Espec-1. I think my view (and this was something we investigated in some of the precursor work for SRW) would be that specifying an XSLT as an e-spec would be a better proposal that just specifying a list of XPATHs. This would also have the advantage of have toolkits available for XSLT transforms that could plug in. This would have the side affect of dealing with all that eSpec-Q stuff that emerged from the holdings schema) Matthew
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 06:26:34 UTC