[WEB4LIB] Re: SRW/U for DSpace

[Ross Singer]

Well, and it opens the possibility of using a single interface for 
multiple searches as well...  It's becoming increasingly important for 
us to expose our databases and include them in other interfaces, if for 
no other reason than to let users know that they even exist.

So, no, I'm not saying that the web form interface to DSpace is valuable 
in that regard, but exposing the db to SRW/U is.

And I think DSpace is trying to solve a different problem than the 
opac.  I personally prefer keeping our institutional repository records 
seperate from the opac and finding other ways to expose them when users 
search our assets.

-Ross.

Mike Taylor wrote:

>>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:24:00 -0800 (PST)
>>From: Edward Spodick <lbspodic at ust.hk>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>What does the user gain from using the SRW/U interface over a web opac
>>>      
>>>
>>At the moment - absolutely nothing.  In fact, I believe they lose
>>some functionality.
>>    
>>
>
>There is at least one important gain for people who use a lot of
>different search services, though, and that is uniformity of
>interface.  It pains me that every time I use a new service, I have to
>learn a new web GUI, even though 90% of the functionality is the
>same.  When a standard network API such as SRW/U or Z39.50 is used, I
>can learn _one_ application, and apply that to all services that
>support the relevant protocol.  Even when this uniformity is not
>exploited by a metasearch engine, that's still a big win.
>
> _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
>/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike at indexdata.com>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
>)_v__/\  "I don't see disagreement as a bad thing. It forces me
>	 to defend my position.  If I cannot do it satisfactorily,
>	 my idea hits the bin.  I see this as good" -- Alan Kent.
>
>--
>Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
>	http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/
>
>
>
>  
>



*********************************************************************
Due to deletion of content types excluded from this list by policy,
this multipart message was reduced to a single part, and from there
to a plain text message.
*********************************************************************