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  May 2002

ZNG May 2002

Subject:

Re: Betr.: revised Bath/CQL searches

From:

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Thu, 23 May 2002 12:10:42 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (80 lines)

On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Theo van Veen wrote:
> Let me put it completely differently.
>
> First - correct my when I'm wrong

I think you meant "me" not "my" :-) :-) :-) Sorry, coult not resist.

> - the use of a Bath profile was in my opinion to get clients and
> servers supporting the same queries to establish interoperability. In
> my personal view the need for such a profile comes from the lack of
> Z39.50 to deal with differences in general between servers and/or
> clients. With SRU/SRW we now have an opprtunity to get this right

Agreed.

> Second. In the SRU/SRW discussions Z39.50 and what SOAP toolkits can
> or cannot do play a role. In my personal view this shouldn't be the
> case.

I can see your goal, but I don't share it exactly. I think SRW is under
the ZiNG umbrella - the 'Z' being Z39.50. I am interested in SRW
cleaning up SRW, make things more standard, but for use with Z39.50 so
what Z39.50 can and cannot do is important.

What do other's on this list feel?

> The answer is quite simple: The server decides whether it can handle
> the query and if not....

Because of the Z39.50 slant, I have no objections to such goals, if I
can work out how to make it work with Z39.50. I agree with the goal of
getting SRW nice and consistent. What I would like to do is to be able
to provide a configuration file to a SRW gateway product which generated
the correct Z39.50 attribute lists for a particular server to answer
the query. So if different Z39.50 servers have addressed something in
different ways, fine - as long as I can write a new configuration file
for that particular server.

My fear is I don't think SRW will take off if it requires each vendor
to implement SRW. It just takes to long. I would like to be able to
generate a SRW product that can be used in front of any vendor's Z39.50
database - using configuration files to adapt it in a suitable way for
that target.

> The minimum what a server can do is say "no hits I do not support
> this query". A "better" server would say "no hits I do not support this
> query ...
> My proposal sounds silly and illustrates the big gap between my
> preferred approach and other approaches but I just give it a try as
> there might be people that also like this approach.

I don't think you proposals are silly at all. There are good aspects
to them. I am happy to argue through details. But *I* will keep bringing
Z39.50 into the discussion because of my *personal* objectives.

Also, I don't like leaving things vague (maybe my background). So I
dislike a spec saying "an implementation can choose what 'supports'
means, and what 'better' is." I would rather concrete statements such
as: "if an index name is specified that is not known by the SRW gateway,
it will look for another name with different prefixes. If it finds
multiple matches, it will OR them together. If it finds no matches,
it will ignore the search term." I am not proposing this as a rule,
I just want concrete rules defined. Without agreement on how to interpret
a query, I think interoperability will go down and you will end up with
the Z39.50 vague semantics (in areas) all over again. I want to avoid this,
so I want precise specifications, not implementation choices.

So I have no objections to you bringing up goals. I think it is good.
But I want details so I can work out how to implement it. I want
consistency in implementations for interoperability, so I want the spec
to specify exact semantics and what to do in different circumstances,
since SRW is (in my opinion) intended for use with Z39.50. I am happy
to provide an additional level of better semantics on top of Z39.50
to clean things up a bit, but I want a mapping from those semantics
to Z39.50 semantics.

As I say, others are free to disagree!

Alan

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