 |
 |
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Eric Hellman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Eek. I was hoping for something much simpler. Do you realize that you're asking for service taxonomy? > Yes. I think you'd have to have one, otherwise how would you know what to expect from the results? If the target only offered TOCs or something, you would want to distinguish that from a target that offers fulltext or ILL fulfillment. I mean, right? How would you propose a response, Eric? I'm not sold on the ctx idea (in fact, I'd love something simpler), I just thought it would tie a nice bow around the existing spec :) -Ross. > On Apr 30, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Ross Singer wrote: > >> I think the basis of a response could actually be another context >> object with the 'services' entity containing a list of >> services/targets that are formatted in some way that is appropriate >> for the context and the referent entity enhanced with whatever the >> resolver can add to the puzzle. >