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 2002

ZNG May 2002

Subject:

Re: Betr.: Ralph's Premises

From:

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Fri, 17 May 2002 15:14:20 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (51 lines)

On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 03:46:40PM +0100, Mike Taylor wrote:
> Suppose you're writing a server.  A client sends a search against a
> CQL prefix "title".  Now your back-end configuration doesn't know
> anything about that prefix.  All it knows about is "bib.title" and
> "heraldry.title".  So what does it do?  Well, it could just fault the
> search: that's perfectly legitimate but doesn't strike me as very
> helpful.  If you want to make life nice for the poor user (or the poor
> multi-casting search gateway) you'll guess that it probably meant
> bib.title and go ahead on that basis.

This makes me a little uncomfortable. I would rather a database designer
decide in advance that "title" is the same as "dc.title" (and so define
both index names). I dislike fuzzy semantics of "well, I did not describe
"title" via explain, but you can query on it anyway."  Either that or
it needs to be thrashed out and a good formal semantic model worked out.
I would rather just get the database designer to take such issues into
account when they design the database.

> My suggestion is simply this: that we gently encourage servers which
> want to be useful to do so by using DC-like semantics for unqualifed
> prefixes that it doesn't have its own meaning for.

My suggestion is mildy differnt. I suggest allowing a server to
publicise the index names it supports via Explain. Names can have
prefixes, but can also omit them.

Groups can then, outside the CQL standard, define profiles where each
profile "claims" a prefix. Databases can then be designed to be
conformant to a profile.

But a database designer is free to implement whatever they want.
They can define their own set of names like "title" etc. They can
define support for standard prefixes (like "dc.title"). The standard
does not recommend one over the other - it only explains that
prefixes are intended to be used with standard sets of index names
with published meaning, where those meanings are outside the CQL spec.

With this semantics, then all you need to do is say "index names can
have a '.' in them" and "it is a common practice to use a prefix such
as 'dc' as in 'dc.title' for use in CQL profiles." Prefixes then have
zero special semantics in CQL - its conventions on how people use names
with '.' in them that is the only special part. The result is nice
simple, clean, semantics. You can query on names that are listed in
the Explain record.


Alan

ps: If a index name is not defined, the behaviour to use (error,
server default, etc) to me is a separate issue.

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