Subject: NEW RELATION - resourcesync (resubmission)

From: Herbert van de Sompel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 02:13:18 -0700

Relation Name: resourcesync

Description:  The Target IRI points to a resource that provides
information about resource synchronization options.

Reference: http://www.openarchives.org/rs/resourcesync

Notes: The specification is in the process of being standardized as
ANSI/NISO z39-99. It is currently openly available from the OAI site.
Once it achieves the status of ANSI/NISO standard, it will be openly
available on both the OAI and the NISO web sites.

Application Data: [optional]

-- 
Herbert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/

==

---

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:27:36 +0100

hello herbert.

> available on both the OAI and the NISO web sites.

this may be a bit broader then the specific relation and protocol 
defining it, but i'll go ahead and ask anyway: PuSH is a protocol that's 
not standards track and has changed a fair bit in its recent versions. 
but it has similar ideas of providing places where streams of potential 
sync records can be obtained, and the "hub" relation for example then 
links to a push-based delivery point. is there any relationship between 
these proposals? maybe they can share link relations or other 
architectural bits. i was just wondering if there has been some attempts 
to align these protocols, if they have been compared, and if that might 
influence the choice of link relations.

thanks and cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:[email-masked]  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |

---

From: Jan Algermissen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:35:29 +0100

On 11.01.2014, at 10:27, Erik Wilde <[email-masked]> wrote:

> PuSH

gota reference?

---

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:39:23 +0100

> On 11.01.2014, at 10:27, Erik Wilde <[email-masked]> wrote:

sorry. http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/

---

From: Herbert van de Sompel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 03:24:27 -0700

Hi Erik

PuSH is at the basis of the Notification part of ResourceSync, see
http://www.openarchives.org/rs/notification

The "core" ResourceSync spec is all about pull-based sync, see
http://www.openarchives.org/rs/resourcesync

Greetings

Herbert

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Erik Wilde <[email-masked]> wrote:
> this may be a bit broader then the specific relation and protocol defining
> it, but i'll go ahead and ask anyway: PuSH is a protocol that's not
> standards track and has changed a fair bit in its recent versions. but it
> has similar ideas of providing places where streams of potential sync
> records can be obtained, and the "hub" relation for example then links to a
> push-based delivery point. is there any relationship between these
> proposals? maybe they can share link relations or other architectural bits.
> i was just wondering if there has been some attempts to align these
> protocols, if they have been compared, and if that might influence the
> choice of link relations.
>
> thanks and cheers,
>
> dret.
>
> --

==