agreed but if there is an appropriate bib1 (now called z3950) diagnostic
lets use it rather than fedine it or something similar in the SRW:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> I don't see that ZIG approval or not is important. In a fault code you
> have to qualify the fault value. If we say 'we want a diagnostic saying
> that the Z session timed out so we lost your result set' and they say
> 'Huh??' then we can add a fault code SRW:LostZSession
> Equally we could say bib1:6 rather than z39.50:6 to make the code
> explicitly from the BIB1 diagnostics.
> > Yes, we'll assume bib-1 diagnostics.
> > We'll cross the zig non-approval bridge when it catches fire. Until then,
> > assume that they want us to succeed.
> > > 1.We're not planning to accompany an srw diagnostic with an
> > > oid, are we? So
> > > would SRW simply assume bib-1? Is that a good idea?
> > > 2. Supposed we need a new diagnostic that doesn't make sense
> > > for Z39.50 (e.g.
> > > invalid session id, session id expired, result set ttl
> > > expired, etc). We
> > > normally seek ZIG approval before adding a diagnostic to
> > > bib-1. Ususally
> > > there's no objection, or even discussion. On occasion though
> > > a diagnostic has
> > > been rejected. But at least, the diagnostics proposed usually
> > > make sense.
> > > What's the ZIG going to say when we propose one that doesn't?
> > >
> > > --Ray
> > >
> ,'/:. 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