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: bath, cql, etc.

From:

Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Fri, 24 May 2002 09:57:53 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (41 lines)

"LeVan,Ralph" wrote:

> I've not liked the way the conversation over the last couple of days has
> been going, so I'm happy to see Alan push back towards the middle. I'm
> buried in stuff here and was just too unhappy to reply.
>
> I want the CQL syntax to be a naively simple as possible, even to the point
> of losing some functionality. (I hope not to, but you need to understand
> where I'm starting from.) I know that the SRW folks will have code between
> their users and CQL and I hear the SRU folks saying the same. But, once
> this stuff is turned loose, there are going to be folks putting up dumb HTML
> forms that poke unmediated queries at our servers and I want them to have a
> chance of working. I also know that there will be programmers hand-crafting
> URLs to poke at us and I don't want to replace the complexity of z39.50 with
> the complexity of CQL. This needs to be a language obvious to idiots.
>
> I suspect that we're going to have to agree on adding an optional query-type
> parameter so that we can use the appropriate language for the appropriate
> situation. But right now, I want it simple.
>
> CCL was designed to be the language that end-users got taught to search
> bibliographic utilities. It is simple and embedded, in one form or another,
> in most local library systems. It needs to be our starting place. I've got
> no problem with adding complex syntax to do non-core complex stuff. But I'm
> going to resist tinkering with the base stuff.
>

But there is no "base stuff". I agree with everything you said but it doesn't
help much. We don't have an unambiguous bnf right now to argue about and I see
this as an urgent problem. It doesn't have to be stable or represent a
consensus, but it should at least be out there. So that I can provide people
(like officials here at LC) with examples strings based on something concrete,
and also so that we can have something concrete to debate.

If you want to quicky write a bnf I'll happily abandon the one I wrote yesterday
and put up yours. The bnf at http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/cql.html --
we all appreciate your work in writing it -- but it is badly out of date and
needs to be replaced by one that at least defines the cql string.

--Ray

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