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: sort parameter

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:42:33 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (100 lines)

Although I posted a different proposal, I like the simplicity of Alan's
proposal. As long as there is no error message returned when the
server cannot do the requested sort I also support that proposal.

Theo

On 24 Jun 02, at 8:04, LeVan,Ralph wrote:

> I agree with Alan that the problem with tagpath sorting is that there
> is no classic equivalent.
>
> I'll support his alternative proposal.
>
> Ralph
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alan Kent [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 9:01 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: sort parameter
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 09:43:50AM -0400, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> > > A Sort parameter, might look something like this:
> > >
> > > -----------------
> > > <sort>
> > > <sortKey  direction="ascending">
> > <index>bathTitleWord</index></sortKey>
> > > <sortKey  direction="ascending">
> > >     <elementPath schema= "schema identifier">
> > >                 <element> element1</element>
> > >                 <element> element2</element>
> > >                 ....
> > >     </elementPath>
> > > </sortKey>
> > > <sortKey  direction="ascending"> <sortKeyName> title
> > <sortKeyName></sortKey>
> > > </sort>
> > > ---------------------
> > >
> > > That gives three options: index (Rob), element path
> > (Ralph), or sort key name
> > > (Alan).
> > >
> > > Do we need all three or can we agree on one?
> > >
> > > --Ray
> >
> > I think having 3 would be bad - overly complex. I think we all want
> > to try and keep it simple.
> >
> > If you want sorting in SRU, doesn't this mean the sort
> > specifications should be able to be reduced to a simple list of
> > strings? (XML encoding parameters I think is ugly).
> >
> > Using index names I don't think is enough. There are lots of
> > parameters
> > that need to be passed to a Z39.50 sort request.
> >
> > Using element paths I dislike because I don't know how to turn it
> > into a Z39.50 sort request. It also relies on the XML structure of
> > the returned XML. What if I use an XSLT etc stylesheet to tranform
> > the database stored XML into the returned XML (for supporting
> > different schemas). In order to support the sorting as specified, I
> > need to map the element names in the returne XML structure back to
> > the database stored XML structure, then work out how to turn that
> > into a Z39.50 sort request which does not have element paths (if I
> > am understanding the request).
> >
> > My final proposal (case 3) is not to have a direction attribute, but
> > rather have it implied by the sort key name. That is, a single name
> > identifies the complete set of values to plug into a Z39.50 sort
> > request. This works well with SRU too.
> >
> > Here are all the Z39.50 sort parameters that are in the spec:
> >
> >     SortKey being one of
> >       - sort field (a string where its up to the server what it
> >       means) - element spec - attribute list
> >     sortRelation (ascending, descending, ascByFrequency, descByFreq)
> >     caseSensitivity missing value action (abort, null,
> >     missingValueData = XXXX)
> >
> > I hesitate to say 'lets support asending/descending, but not case
> > sensitivity or missing value action', only because someone may come
> > along later and want it. But I also dislike putting too much
> > complexity in SRU/SRW. Hence my suggestion of a simple sort key name
> > where the gateway can turn it into whatever sort request it wants
> > to. As soon as you say 'ascending/descending should be a paramter
> > because its different', why not case sentitivity too? or missing
> > value action?
> >
> > But I am happy to go along with whatever people decide - as long as
> > there is an algorithm for converting the SRU/SRW request into a
> > Z39.50 sort request.
> >
> > Alan
> >

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