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
|