Feel free to add Alan to the list.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:47 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [Fwd: SIM entry on list of test servers incorrect]
> Ignore the first part of this and go to the "ps".
> We need to provide a forum for these sort of comments from legitimate,
> perspective ZNG implementors, short of carrying this
> discussion over the ZIG
> list, or opening up the ZNG list to the public.
> I suggest that we add prospective ZNG implementors case-by-case (at my
> discretion). I think that the policy we agreed to was that
> new "members" need
> to implement the existing specs, after which they have the
> same stake as
> everyone else, and can suggest changes. I think that Alan
> Kent would agree to
> this and would be a valuable addition to this effort. So I
> propose we invite
> him to participate.
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Alan Kent <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: SIM entry on list of test servers incorrect
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Hi Ray,
> Our test server has been behind a firewall for a while now with no-one
> noticing - so we must get lots of people testing :-)
> But I recently got a request from someone in India, so I put it
> back up outside the firewall. I then checked the SIM entry on
> the list of test servers. Everything is correct except the host name.
> The SIM entry current specifies a host name of:
> It should be
> All the request of the details are probably good enough.
> Its nothing urgent, but it was curious.
> ps: I read the ZNG related minutes with interest. I have been
> a SOAP toolkit for SIM for other projects so might have a play.
> I do not like the current WSDL file because I do not think it
> correctly addresses some of the problems such as referring to old
> result sets. I might try one evening to write my own version and
> put up a test server for people to play with. I could try and put
> up a ZNG server according to the current spec if it was of use
> (well, as close as I can do it with minimal effort). I am not sure
> whether its good or bad putting up too many alternatives.
> I have strong personal opinions about what is good and bad out of
> Z39.50 for fields outside of libraries - mainly because we use
> Z39.50 pretty well every day in this way. But the Z39.50 community
> is currently very much a library community, so trying to get
> Z39.50 out into the bigger world (or ZNG, or whatever) I think
> is going to be hard due to the community - but I think I have said
> that before in a posting to the mailing list, so I will get off
> my SOAP box :-)