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: cql prefixes

From:

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Thu, 2 May 2002 16:02:19 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (64 lines)

Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
>
> How about if we register prefixes?  I'll be quite happy to do it if that
> will help.

LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> No!  The Explain service will say waht prefix is expected!
>
> Ralph

There are several different points of view in all this with different
things trying to be achieved. This is what I *think* different people feel.

* Some people want Explain to be the authoritive source of information
  and a server defines whatever names for access points it supports.

* Some people want to express a single query and be able to send it
  to multiple servers. Explain cannot be easly used to solve this problem.

I am in the latter camp, but don't mind the former if the latter
can also be achieved. And I think both can be satisfied.

My proposal I have tried to express is not to mandate names in CQL.
So there is no CQL official registered list of prefixes. Instead,
profiles can be developed independently to CQL which would typically
define a set of names (which all shared a prefix). Servers conforming
to this profile can then all accept queries conforming to the profile.
But each server (via explain) describes exactly what it supports.

If the above is acceptable, then (and only then) it *could* be decided
in CQL to add support for the above by reserving a character in CQL
to be used for prefixes (such as '.'). But there is no point arguing
about this point unless the first proposal (or some variation) is
accepted.

So I am in favour of there being no requirement of a CQL implementation
to implement anything to do with prefixes. So there is no CQL based
registry as Ray offered.

However, I am also in favour of *allowing* companion profiles to be defined
which are shared by people who wish to use such profiles. In this case,
Ray's offer to host such profiles I think would be a good idea.
If CQL finally gets there, then CQL and whatever other profiles are
developed can be put on the LoC or similar site, but as separate
documents.

I cannot see why there should be any objection to this approach
(but am fully expecting someone to point out some deficency! :-).
People who don't want prefixes and profiles as a part of CQL are
satisfied (ie, use Explain to discover field names in database).
People who want profiles are satisified (ie, can send a query
without change to lots of servers - *if* those servers conform to
the profile).

Alan

ps: I would almost prefer that attribute set definitions, such as
Bib-1, STAS, etc, define the preferred short names to be used for
those access points with the intent that they can be used in CCL
or CQL or whatever. But I can imagine LOTS of arguing about which
short acronym to use for what given all the Bib-1 variations on
title, author, and subject!!! So I think Bath-like profiles might
be a better place for such a thing.

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