- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:19:11 +0100 (BST)
- To: Alison Stevenson <as@it-innovation.soton.ac.uk>
- cc: "'www-zig@w3c.org'" <www-zig@w3c.org>, Mike Boniface <mjb@it-innovation.soton.ac.uk>, <www-zig@w3.org>
> In implementing the SRW we have been thinking about some of the issues
> listed on the website, in particular the use of URLs to define queries
Could you go into some more detail about this? How would one define a
query using a URL?
> We have had also had to give thought to specifying queries and returning
> records which consist of more that simple text - in ARTISTE every record
> consists of an image and related metadata and queries may consist of
> only an image, only metadata, or a combination of a image and metadata.
That, as Mike has just said, is one of the tradeoffs. You can't do that
using SRW as SRW only works in strings. And until it becomes SSSESRW
(Search, Scan, Sort, Extended Services, Retrieve Webservice) there's a
whole lot more you can't do too. Such as sorting by date or finding lists
of artists.
For sophisticated IR, you still need Z39.50 and will continue to do so
until SRW has put back in the complexity it's currently missing.
For small projects that have no need of the full scope of Z39.50, SRW is
(will be) really useful. But your project certainly doesn't seem to be one
of them.
UK Academic projects of note are JAFER (Matthew Dovey at Oxford) and
Cheshire (Me, Liverpool in conjunction with UCB) I suspect that JAFER is
more suited to your needs though as it's Java based, but Cheshire would
certainly be useful as well.
Rob
--
,'/:. Rob Sanderson (azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk)
,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:25:21 UTC