On Fri, 10 May 2002, Alan Kent wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 04:20:48PM -0400, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> > 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
> > So please tell me, what am I missing?

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

As Mike has said we already have abstract names in ZeeRex for
ComplexAttributeType (and for SRW, otherwise the justification would be a
little thin).

> 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

See also Explain Classic which effectively did this, but via ASN/BER
structures as opposed to XML. If it didn't work for Explain, then I posit
that it won't work when recast in SOAP.

The only thing that ZeeRex (1.6) doesn't have is attributeSet which we're
perfectly willing to add.

Rob

--
      ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Twin Cathedrals:  telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::.              WWW:  http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I