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:

several subjects

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:22:48 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (26 lines)

I have been away for a few days so I respond to all the subjects and messages in a single message.

1.
I agree (and am even glad) with resultsetId and query being mutually exclusive parameters. I got the impression that this was decided  now.

2.
How are ttl's used in different implemenatations? As it is only a hint our client would try using the resultsetid  before the ttl expired and re-issue the query in case of an error, but it would do the same after the ttl expired  because the resultset could still be available. So we do not really use the ttl. How do other implementors deal with the ttl?

3.
I agree with resultsets being independ sessions as far as the client concerns. If the server wants to relate them, it  is up to the server, as long as the client not needs to be aware.

4.
Sorting existing resultsets is OK for me. Does the server return a new resultsetid after sorting, keeping the previous resulset available under is old name?

5.
By adding recordnumbers to records from a resultsets the recordnumbers would automatically be a surrogate or placeholder when a record is missing. When there are no record numbers this may be interpreted as there being no persistant resultset. 
I was the one from the SRU camp that requested recordnumbers to aid XSLT transforms, but if we can't count on recordnumbers in persistant resultsets, we will probably not use them at all. 
Not having recordnumbers makes the implementation more complicated because we need to know which records count and which don't. See Matthew's example with the different record schemas in a single response.

6.
I agree with Ralph that sort fields should be related to what is in a retrieved record, but it is not always known a priori what is in a record. I would prefer that clients may specify whatever sortfields they want and that the server returns which fields were actually used for sorting. In addition it would help to have a "a-sortid" and a "d-sortid" to distinguish between ascending and descending.
In 99% of the cases I expect "d-sortid=date" or "a-sortid=author&a-sortid=title". When a client asks for some sortfield that is not supported, the server decides how to sort and indicates in the response which fields could be used to do the sort. Maybe it could use some, but not all,  of the specified sortfields.  
Being flexible, not returning an error message and making clear that the client cannot rely on sorting is the best we can do to keep interoperability.

Theo

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