> > Aaaaagh! - SRW is suppose to be about defining an on the wire protocol *NOT*
> > a user query language (IMHO). These are different endeavours (albeit
> > admittedly related). I suspect basing CQL on CCL is causing more confusion
> > here.
> But we are talking about SRW and SRU. SRU wants a simple textual
> query language. I don't think SRU people are going to be happy
> having to generate a URL query parameter that is an XML encoded value.
> of things. I also personally believe it will raise the acceptance
> barrier. People are used to things like SQL. Programmers don't write
> applications using SQL by creating a tree of data structures. They
> write a textual query. The length of client code can increase significantly
> when you have to build up data structures node by node etc to form
> a query tree.
No longer than having to build it up in CQL (which will have to be done
with non readable result set names) It needs to be built up somehow and
there are already tools in most languages for building XML.
Most people are at least familiar with SQL, but if they're building SOAP
applications then they're used to RPC via XML. I would think that the
extra power /and/ ease of parsing would lower the barrier to entry, not
,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I