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: Ex-plain SRW and ZeeRex

From:

Poul Henrik Jørgensen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Fri, 10 May 2002 12:53:46 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (87 lines)

Hi Ray et al.

We use different adaptations of ExplainLite inspired XML documents for
dynamic configuration by several of our different Clients using Z39.50
and/or other protocols. The possibility to add "private" XML elements to the
ExplainXML documents has proven to be very useful.

From a maintenance point of view it is cheaper to modify the client-side XSL
to parse additional relevant XML elements, than it is to add additional
function calls to the Servers (and Clients). Existing XSLPath code will
usually not be affected by the existence of additional elements.

I therefore support Ralph's views below.

Best regards,
Poul Henrik
mailto:[log in to unmask]


 
-----Original Message-----
From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10. maj 2002 04:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ÆEx-plainÅ SRW and ZeeRex


I'd be happier with the extensible XML document than an interface that might
need to change.

Ralph

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Kent [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 8:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [Ex-plain] SRW and ZeeRex


On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 04:20:48PM -0400, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> As I try to write something to justify the srw/zeeRex relationship, it
> occurs to me that the only concrete reason offered why the two efforts
> shouldn't be aligned is the index vs. attribute approach. If there are
> other tecnical incompatibilities that I've missed, or things that SRW need
> that ZeeRex doesn't supply, please list them so we can try to address
those
> too.
>
> Looking over the recent discussion on indexes vs. attributes -- that
> discussion got sidetracked to a discussion of soap, but it seems that
where
> we left off was that zeeRex would indeed include the abstract index names
> that srw needs. If zeeRex also lists explicit attributes, so what? SRW
can
> ignore them, or better, zeeRex could define an element set for srw (srw is
> going to ignore other things too, like record syntax, for instance).
>
> So please tell me, what am I missing?
>
> --Ray

Having the abstract names in ZeeRex would be good and make it relevant.

What is not clear to me (and I have not thought about it) is what
is the purpose of 'explain' with SRW. For example, do we want to
return an XML document for applications to pull apart? Or do we want
a SOAP based API with various method calls to return simple types
(strings, integers - not XML documents) which describe what is
in the server.

Put another way, a ZeeRex record may be able to describe a SRW server.
But does that mean SRW should use a ZeeRex record as the SRW explain
mechanism? Or should SRW define functions such as

    giveMeAListOfIndexNames() returning an array of strings
    giveMeIndexDescription(String name) returning description as string

As a programmer, I would prefer a set of function calls. Yes, XML is
cute and can represent complex data models. But a SRW goal to me is
to have a very simple data model exposed to programmers using SRW.

So a ZeeRex describing a SRW site? Sounds fine. ZeeRex as the SRW
explain mechanism? I would like to think about it a little more
before committing one way or the other.

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