1 / 52

Ray Denenberg

Project Briefing. “ Key Standards Updates ” SRU. April 4, 2006; Washington. Rob Sanderson. Ray Denenberg. SRU Events. Version 1.1 February 2004 Several Editorial Board Meetings Implementors Meetings: June 2005, Chicago March 2006, The Hague. Results/Decisions. Administrative

clare-delgado
Download Presentation

Ray Denenberg

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Project Briefing “Key Standards Updates” SRU April 4, 2006; Washington Rob Sanderson Ray Denenberg

  2. SRU Events • Version 1.1 February 2004 • Several Editorial Board Meetings • Implementors Meetings: • June 2005, Chicago • March 2006, The Hague

  3. Results/Decisions

  4. Administrative Name Changes Profiles/Relationships OpenURL OAI OpenSearch Standardization Results/Decisions

  5. Administrative Name Changes Profiles/Relationships OpenURL OAI OpenSearch Standardization Technical Indexes (Context Sets) Proximity Sort Extensions Diagnostics Parameters Results/Decisions

  6. Administrative Name Changes Profiles/Relationships OpenURL OAI OpenSearch Standardization Technical Indexes (Context Sets) Proximity Sort Extensions Diagnostics Parameters (Results/Decisions

  7. Name Changes

  8. SRW • SRU Search Retrieve Web Service Search Retrieve via URL

  9. SRW • SRU • SRU over SOAP Search Retrieve via URL Formerly SRW

  10. Search Retrieve via URL • SRU • SRU over SOAP • SRU POST Formerly SRW new

  11. SRU • SRU over SOAP • SRU Post • CQL Common Query Language

  12. SRU • SRU over SOAP • SRU Post • CQL Common Query Language

  13. SRU • SRU over SOAP • SRU Post • CQL Common Query Language Contextual Query Language

  14. Summary same • SRU • SRU over SOAP • SRU Post • CQL Formerly SRW new Contextual Query Language

  15. Context Sets

  16. What is a Context Set? • For purposes of this discussion: a context set gives context to an index (a search access point); e.g: • dc.title = cat vs. • mods.title = cat

  17. Proposed Context Sets • MODS • MARC • OpenURL

  18. mods • mods.title=“Paradise Lost” • Marc • marc.245$a = “Paradise Lost” • OpenURL • openurl.btitle=“Paradise Lost”

  19. MODS set • For bibliographic searching. • Indexes based on MODS. • MODS used for reference semantics. • But does not presume that the data being searched is MODS. • Analogous to Z39.50 bib-1 and MARC. • Working group to be established.

  20. MARC set • For searching on specific MARC fields, subfields, and substrings. • For users familiar and more comfortable with the MARC format, who prefer to formulate queries using MARC vocabulary.

  21. OpenURL Context Set • A set of indexes corresponding to OpenURL keys, for book, journal, dissertation, patent, etc. • For resolvers: receive an openURL and wish to locate the desired item via SRU.  • not intended for general bibliographic searching.

  22. Proposed Context Sets: Resolution

  23. Proposed Context Sets: Resolution bib set • MODS • MARC • OpenURL profile

  24. Summary • bib • bib.title=“Paradise Lost” • Marc • marc.245$a = “Paradise Lost” • OpenURL Profile

  25. OpenURL Profile

  26. OpenURL Profile • will prescribe a mapping from bibliographic indexes to OpenURL keys.

  27. OpenURL Profile • will prescribe a mapping from bibliographic indexes to OpenURL keys. • Hopefully will be taken on by the bib working group. 

  28. OpenURL Profile • will prescribe a mapping from bibliographic indexes to OpenURL keys. • Hopefully will be taken on by the bib working group.  • may also specify how an SRU response can facilitate the client process of formulating an OpenURL.

  29. OpenURL Scenarios • Scenario 1: • resolver receives OpenURL • wants to formulate an SRU request • Scenario 2: • SRU client receives a record • wants to create an OpenURL

  30. Scenario 2 • SRU client receives a record and wants to create an OpenURL where the object described by that record is to be the referent. • Client requests the record for that item in the appropriate OpenURL schema -- for example: • Books: • http://www.openurl.info/registry/docs/xsd/info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:book • Journals • http://www.openurl.info/registry/docs/xsd/info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:journal • Then uses that record directly, to formulate an OpenURL request.

  31. SRU Standardization

  32. What to standardize? • How?

  33. What to Standardize: • SRU • CQL • ZeeRex • Scan

  34. SRU: • SRU itself • SRU over SOAP (formerly SRW) • SRU POST • CQL • ZeeRex • Scan

  35. How?

  36. Philosophy

  37. Premise • “The world clearly needs a (single,) well-defined, powerful protocol for searching by URL with results returned in XML.” -- Mike Taylor

  38. The world needs a standard protocol for searching by URL with results returned in XML. • Competing protocols are being developed. • One of these will drive this standardization effort if SRU does not. • And if so, it won’t meet our needs.

  39. And Therefore…. • SRU needs to drive this effort. • It needs to involve the other interested communities. • In conclusion …..

  40. Conclusion • SRU standardization needs to be in a mainstream standards body.

  41. OASIS

  42. OASIS Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards

  43. OASIS • Founded 1993: “SGML Open” • 5,000+ participantsrepresenting • over 600+ organizations • 100 countries • Produces • Web services standards • More than any other organization. • standards for security, e-business, and specific applications.

  44. OASIS • Neutral ground for merging competing de facto standards into an industry standard. • Lightweight process to: • promote industry consensus • unite disparate efforts.

  45. OASIS Cycle • public-list • Technical Committee • Standard

  46. OASIS public-list process • Discuss the formation of an OASIS TC. • Develop a charter.

  47. Technical Committee to Determine: • Is there consensus across communities that a harmonized standard would emerge from an OASIS TC; • -- or • Are there intrinsic, insurmountable differences of opinion? • Would other parties (A9 etc.) participate? • How much change will input from other parties introduce? • How long will it take to get to a committee draft? • The version prior to public comment and a vote of all OASIS members

  48. OASIS Cycle • Public List • About 3 months. • Technical Committee • About 6 months. • Committee Draft to standard • About 3 months.

  49. SRU Cycle • Version 1.2 • formalize the easy changes into SRU version 1.2. • Version 2.0 • Take the more complex problems into the standardization process.

  50. Possible Standardization Sequence • OASIS • Fast Track in NISO • Fast Track in ISO

More Related