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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  June 2002

ZNG June 2002

Subject:

Re: Betr.: Re: result set model for srw

From:

"LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:03:43 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (63 lines)

Amen!  Testify brother!

I'm still not opposed to adding other query grammars to SRW.  There is
definitely a small community that would like to see a structured, post- or
pre-fix XML query.  But, I've never heard of anyone outside the z39.50
community that wanted to see Polish Notation, XML structured or otherwise.
The fact that our standard had the words Polish Notation stopped many web
folks from reading any further.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Taylor [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 12:38 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Betr.: Re: result set model for srw
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:21:00 +0100
> > From: Matthew Dovey <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > > > No, No, No, No, No (you've stopped being sensible now Alan!).
> > > > Typically users shouldn't be typing in CQL.
> > >
> > > I just wish to place on record my fundamental disagreement with
> > > this stance.  [...] Some users will want a "friendly" (i.e. dumbed
> > > down) UI for querying.  But in any serious application, there will
> > > be "professional" users who need access to the power of CQL.
> >
> > Aaaaagh! - SRW is suppose to be about defining an on the wire
> > protocol *NOT* a user query language (IMHO). These are different
> > endeavours (albeit admittedly related). I suspect basing CQL on CCL
> > is causing more confusion here.
>
> Well, this is another issue that will quickly degenerate into a
> sequence of "Oh no it isn't", "Oh yes it is", so I will make a brief
> statement then bow out.  CQL was _always_ designed to be
> human-comprehensible (ain't it so, Ralph?)  Why do that if not so that
> humans can read it and write it.
>
> > I don't disagree that a UI may wish to provide an advance text
> > string way of entering queries [...]  If I want to provide a human
> > typeable query langauge (be it based on CQL, RPN, PQN or whatever)
> > then the client needs to parse this into the on-the-wire messages
>
> But you know and I know that in Real Life, that won't happen.  Every
> single one of us, in our implementations (well maybe eveyone except
> Matthew :-) will have a way for people to type CQL straight in.  We
> know it'll be that way, so why not make it easier for people to use?
>
> If we really do intend that users should never see CQL then really,
> let's go with one of the other approaches: XML Query, the Type-1 Query
> encoded in XML or some such.  The whole point of CQL is its
> amenability to humans.
>
>  _/|_
> _______________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <[log in to unmask]>
> www.miketaylor.org.uk
> )_v__/\  "I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days
>          attack me at once" -- Ashleigh Brilliant.
>

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