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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  July 2001

ZNG July 2001

Subject:

Re: ZNG discussion

From:

"Stevens, Pat" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:23:46 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (141 lines)

Ray

My personal reading is that most of this discussion is happening on the ZIG
list, I'm not sure that we have to answer each and every objection.

I think Poul Henrik suggested in a later post that the paper might be
delayed until the ZIG meeting. I agree, I believe that at this point we
have outlined the experiment. We should do the experiment and then write up
the results.

pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 4:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ZNG discussion


I've scanned the discussion over ZNG on the ZIG list. I think a few good
points have been made and we should think about how to address them.

Joe Zeeman -- See Below.


Pieter Von Lierop -- Nothing coherent from him.


Kevin Thomas -- His rpn examples can't be ignored, and we need to be sure
that we address this in the CQL syntax.


Rob Sanderson -- in addition to other issues covered elsewhere, raises the
issue that without sessions you cannot predict how long result sets will be
available. I suppose the answer is that you can't predict that even with
sessions.


Jan Veght -- suggests a better marketing name than CQL, in particular, the
"C" for "common" should be changed, to allow differentiation from things
like XQuery. (On a positive note, say the 'Search/Retrieve web service'
marketing label is "brilliant".)


Joe Futrelle -- asks why we didn't use XER (actually, he asks what is our
feeling about XER). I think our answer is (a) it's not compatible with
SOAP, and (b) XER preserves too much of the ASN.1/BER baggage that serves
only to make the output heavier and less readable. In a later message, Joe
Futrelle asks how does ZNG differ from OAI, other than the fact that it
includes search. And he says he would "like to see the ZNG designed so that
it can easily serve an interface to OAI harvesters." We talked about this
briefly and I think we need to think seriously about it some more.


Rob Bull -- presents an alternative (and completely different) approach. I
would suggest that another group articulate and implement it.


Scan
-----
A number of people raise the question why we excluded Scan. The fact that
this question is been raised is a clear indication that we haven't done a
good enough job explaining what we're doing.


The Name "ZNG"
-----------------
My initial reaction to the criticism of the name "Z39.50 Next Generation"
was to agree, as Matthew said, in retrospect it was a mistake. But I've
changed my mind. I agree that the name is perhaps misleading and maybe we
should consider changing it later, but not now; it's gotten peoples
attention and stirred up debate. If we change it now to something
innocuous, our effort is more likely to be ignored.


Secrecy
---------
I think that the issue of "process", i.e. "secrecy", raised by Joe Zeeman,
has been addressed adequately by Mike Taylor.




Johan Zeeman wrote:


Just because some implementors don't like the distinction
doesn't make the distinction irrelevant.

(this pertains to the distinction between Search and Present). We need to
better articulate that just because we combined these into a single service
doesn't mean that we don't recognize the distinction.


If a single service is used, the
message must still include information to allow the server to decide whether

a new search is being made or not, especially since the result set model
remains.

I think that it is here where we intentionally decided to blur the
distinction (rather than search/present). For better or worse we've decided
that whether a new search is executed or not is transparent to the protocol.
We need to articulate this better.


Inventing a new query language to compete with XQL is just dumb.

I think Joe is wrong here. XQL (or I presume he means XQuery) right now
simply doesn't support the sort of things that Z39.50 needs -- proximity,
truncation, etc, or in general, text searching.


A standard that lets the same thing be done 2 ways (URL and XML) is going to
fail.

What's the response to that? (Ralph?)


How do you all feel we should respond to these issues? I had suggested that
we write a brief paper, but I haven't heard any feedback on this suggestion.
Does anyone think it's a good idea?


For now, I'll try to keep a running list of and track these issues, until we
decide the best way to address them. Please contribute to the list.


--Ray






--
Ray Denenberg
Library of Congress
[log in to unmask]
202-707-5795

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