> I still feel that there is an awful lot in Z39.50 which just doesn't get
> used. I know Rob would argue that is what makes Z39.50 powerful (and I
> know Rob is one of the few who actually uses that stuff), but in general
Well yes, but 'Rob uses' is a lot more than just me. The list of Cheshire
servers in major national providers is growing quickly and if our JISC/NSF
DLI2 bid is successful then there'll be a lot more in the States beyond
Berkeley as well.
Rob develops code for use by national service providers in the UK and US
(and anyone else!) that uses that stuff.
No its not used by library catalogues. But SRW isn't going to be used by
ILS vendors either in a production environment I suspect.
> My personal opinion is we should keep SRW/SRU fairly simple and not
> introduce anything because we can but because it is really needed (real
> world case and usage scenarios rather than hypothetical).
Then dump CQL. Sorry Ralph, but I really see CQL as the only non simple
part of a session less SRW and non simple enough to be not worthwhile
implementing. I'm just one voice, but at least take it to some other SOAP
developers unrelated to Z39.50 and see if they would implement it
,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. 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