LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  May 2007

ZNG May 2007

Subject:

Re: SRU Version 2.0: proposed OASIS charter for a Web Search Services Technical Committee

From:

"Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Wed, 16 May 2007 09:39:08 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (81 lines)

I don't share Ed's view of the W3C (though I certainly understand it).
There are two reasons for not taking this to w3c.

One, there was strong objection to the w3c route, voiced at both of the two
meeting where we discussed this (June 2005 and March 2006). When I say
"strong", I don't mean "unanimous" or even nearly so, but a substantial
number of people objected strongly, on the basis that the w3c is not "open":
it is very expensive to join and therefore not an option for everyone.  This
is in contrast to OASIS where corporate membership is expensive but they do
offer individual membership (which w3c doesn't).

A second reason is that SRU and CQL are really out of scope for w3c.  They
don't do protocols or query languages, in general. Sure, they do SOAP, but
that's infrastructure (SRU would be considered application).   For query
language, XQuery is a special case. There are reasons (most likely
well-known to us all) why w3c was compelled to do XQuery, but a language
like CQL just isn't within their cultural consciousness. (I don't see CQL as
a business threat, though, as Ed suggests, nor do I agree with the
"corporate greed" characterization, any more than any other group is so
motivated.)

IETF:  I'd have to say from my perspective that one reason for not taking
this to IETF is that procedurally it's a black hole. The ZIG long ago had
mainline members who were very well connected to the IETF  - Kunze, Lynch
(two of them), Kevin Gamiel,  Margaret St. Pierre ... to name a few ...
certainly not me.   With their help we were able to put through some RFCs:
Z39.50 over TCP, the Z39.50 URL specs, WAIS.... Those folks aren't around
anymore.  Trying to navigate IETF without them would have been an unbearably
painful experience (in my view).

--Ray

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Edward C. Zimmermann" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: SRU Version 2.0: proposed OASIS charter for a Web Search
Services Technical Committee


> Quoting "Dr R. Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>
> > W3C and IETF were vaguely interested in CQL [*], but not the higher
>
> The IETF today is not the power that IETF of days long gone was... IETF
has
> (still) DASL and a host of no so unrelated standardization things going..
>
> The W3C is a pay-for-club ruled and directed by deep pocket corporate
> greed worried about missing the train of the "next big thing".
> Since SRU can potentially pose a threat to some dominant players in the
> market should it be tossed into the den of the W3c it would go the path
> of most of their standards into needless complexity, patents, arogance
> (with over a decade of f-cking with XML, Web and hypermedia they still
> are miles behind the state of design that already existed with HyTime by
> the turn of the 1980s into the 1990 and published as ISO standard in 1992)
> and ruin. If anyone thinks that Z39.50 contained everyone's kitchen sink..
> just think about what would happen under the wings of .... if anyone even
> cared (and not bury it like much of the standards swoooshed around at the
W3c).
>
> Since its Web like XML standards.. and that's what OASIS is for.. and
> they are much nicer to deal with.....
>
>
> > level protocol(s) that (could) use it.  These two organisations tend to
> > be a bit lower level, whereas OASIS works with the level of standard one
> > up, where we think that SRU fits in more naturally.  For example, OASIS
> > has the Open Document Format and WS-BPEL which build on the sorts of
> > lower level standard defined by W3C.
> >
> >
> > * To my understanding.  I had some conversation about CQL with the IETF
> > folks, but Ray (?) dealt with W3C folks more than I.
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Rob
> >

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager