LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


ZNG@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


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  June 2002

ZNG June 2002

Subject:

Re: result set model for srw

From:

Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:36:23 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (59 lines)

> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:08:21 -0400
> From: Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > Is it SRW/SRU give access to previous Z39.50 result sets? (Which
> > may be timed out before you get to them.)
>
> I suggest we distinguish based on whether or not a result set name
> is included in the response. Remember that the server may or may not
> supply a result set name; we decided this a long time ago, though it
> was a contentious topic. Some felt that the cql string itself is
> sufficient as a result set name, others dissagreed. However we
> never did completely articulate any different behavior or semantics
> between the two cases (that I can recall), that is, when a response
> includes a result set name and when it does not.
>
> I suggest that when a response does not include a result set name
> then the client should not assume that there is an ordered, stable
> result set. The server may use cached results, treat the query
> string as a result set name, or re-execute the query, as it sees
> fit, transparent to the client.
>
> When the response includes a result set name then perhaps it is
> reasonable to impose more stringent rules, i.e. the client may
> assume an ordered set, thus in a subsequent request, if the cql
> string is just a result set name then the request is to be construed
> as a present against that result set, and the query should not be
> re-executed (unless the server guarantees identical results). If the
> result set isn't around, then the server returns an error.
>
> And further, if we include some kind of sort paramer, at the SRW
> level (not within cql) then if a result set name is supplied in the
> request it refers to the sorted result set. If no result set name is
> included in the request, then if the same cql string is supplied in
> a subsequent request, the server might re-execute the query and the
> results might be in a different order (unless the same sort
> parameter is also included).

I've quoted this suggestion in its entirety so I have context in which
to ask this question: who is looking forward to explaining all this to
the ZIG, the W3C or anyone else? Who's going to enjoy writing
tutorials for this rat's nest of logic?

Heuristics, implied semantics, wild conjecture ... In the name of
simplicity, we have allowed all this to get very complex.

If we want to do serious IR, then we need result sets. So let's have
them in the protocol properly and have done. If we prize simplicity
over power, then let's NOT have them. But please, not this
wishy-washy, in-between, will-he won't-he compromise.

Revelation 3:16 has words to offer on this subject :-)

 _/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make
         software 'releases'. Our software 'escapes,' leaving a
         bloody trail of designers and quality assurance people in
         its wake." -- Klingon Programming Mantra

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