-----Original Message----- From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rd...@loc.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 11:12 AM To: sear...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [search-ws] SRU Diagnostics: Annex C

While I'm working on a new draft we might as well resolve this issue that Matthew has brought up. Does anyone besides Matthew and me have an opinion on this?

The current method to identify a standard diagnostic is via an info URI, the base URI being

info:srw/diagnostic/1

where the '1', called the "authorith component", is assigned to "SRU". And then the actual diagnostic is appended, so for diagnostic 2 the URI would be

info:srw/diagnostic/1/2.

The problem Matthew cites it that we have allocated ranges for different classes of diagnostics, so 1-9 for general, 10-49 for cql, 50-60 for result sets and so on. So if you have another cql diagnostic it cannot be 51, instead you have to start a new range in an unallocated area. Which may be somewhat akward but which I don't see as a real problem. Matthew suggests that we could instead use different "authority components" and then all numbering could start with 1.

Two problems I have with this.

1. It would make interoperability more difficult with earlier versions.

2. That component of the URI is the "authority component" intended to be assigned to an authority who intends to assign diagnostics. In fact, authorith strings 1-15 have already been assigned. I'm not sure how we would go about implementing this suggestion, start assigning categories with 16, where that component has an entirely different meaning? Start all over with a new URI?

Any opinions?

--Ray

but