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

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

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

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

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. SRU SRU over SOAP SRU POST Search Retrieve via URL 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 SRU SRU over SOAP SRU Post CQL Contextual Query Language Formerly SRW new same

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: For purposes of this discussion: a context set gives context to an index (a search access point); e.g: dc.title = cat vs. dc.title = cat vs. mods.title = cat 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. MODS MARC OpenURL bib set profile

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

26. 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 of Structured Information Standards

43. OASIS Founded 1993: “SGML Open” 5,000+ participants representing 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

51. Thank you!

52. Now Rob…..