I shouldn't respond to such blatant trolling, but heh...

On Wed, 7 May 2008, Casey Durfee wrote:
> SRU is crap, in my opinion -- overengineered and under-thought,
> incomprehensible to non-librarians and burdened by the weight of history.

What is so incomprehensible about it?  Is it the fact it uses XML? No?
Is it the REST like interface? No? Ahh... the extremely familiar but not
hideously over-complicated and inappropriate (such as SQL, SPARQL or
XQuery) query language?  That you can just put the URLs into your web
browser and use XSLT to display the results, rather than requiring M2M
interfaces?

> The notion that it was designed to be used by all kinds of clients on all
> kinds of data is irrelevant in my book.  Nobody in the *library world* uses
> it, much less non-libraries.  APIs are for use.  You don't get any points

Except for, you know, small projects like The European Library (which is
the template for the nascent European Digital Library), the Library of
Congress, DSpace, most digital library systems, etc etc etc. And
IndexData have interfaces to many sources of data via SRU, for when it's
not natively implemented.


> for idealogical correctness.  A non-librarian could look at that API
> document, understand it all, and start working with it right away.  There is
> no way you can say that about SRU.

I will say it, right now.  I've had non librarian students look at the
document and start working with it straight away. Multiple times.
My apologies if you don't have similar experiences.

> Kudos to the OpenLibrary team, whatever the reason was, for coming up with
> something better that people outside the library world might actually be
> willing to use.

It's totally arbitrary JSON with a very small fraction of the
functionality and at least as much complexity.  If people are willing to
use it then that's great, certainly.

Rob