LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


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:

result set model for srw

From:

Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:54:47 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (94 lines)

The status discussion leads me to conclude that we
need to formalize, at least to some degree, the
srw result set model --not anything as elaborate
as in real Z39.50, but consider for example this
scenario:

A query results in 5 records; the server supplies
all 5 in the response. The client then requests
result set record 5 (perhaps in a different record
schema). All three of these are possible:

1. the server has created a real result set, and
returns the expected record.

2. the server re-executes the query,  an identical
result set is created and the client gets the
expected record.

3. the server re-executes the query, but this time
the result set is different so the client gets a
record other than the one expected.   (This case
isn't really valid in real Z39.50.)

To what extent do we want to model the capability
for a client to request  a specific result set
record that it has retrieved before and wants to
retrieve again?  Is the stability of the result
set something that can be reflected in the "result
set status"? (I know we have a time-to-live
parameter. Is that sufficient?)

This is related to the surrogate diagnostics
discussion: if a response has surrogate
diagnostics, first, are they positional, and if
so, would they be in the same place each time?

Could the surrogate diagnostics occur in the list
of diagnostics as opposed to positionally, and the
server just return the good records?

Another issue: suppose a query doesn't complete.
Do we automatically assume no results, or can
there be a possibility of partial results....

Matthew Dovey wrote:

> Also I would think that a failure response in
> one of these statuses
> would effectively negate the other two.
>
> E.g. a failure of the search would also imply
> failure of the resultset
> and present, failure of the resultset would also
> imply failure of the
> present etc.

In real Z39.50 the result set status is returned
if and only if the search fails, to reflect the
status of possible partial results. However,
depending on what our result set model turns out
to be, result set existence in srw  may be quite
different than in real Z39.50;  we might want
result-set-status to reflect whether or not a
(stable) result set has been created, in the case
where the query suceeds and completes.

"LeVan,Ralph" wrote:

> I like the idea of the three statuses: search,
> result set and present.

Ralph, can you suggest a list of status value for
each of these?

And more generally, Ralph and Matthew (and others)
would you like to suggest a result set model?


Janifer Gatenby wrote:

> I would also like to see sort as an option
> within CQL, not a separate
> service.

Jan  -- would you like to suggest what the sort
parameter would consist of?  (First, I suppose we
need to see what our result set model will look
like.)   As Ralph and others have noted, even
though a sort option would provide significant
potential for optimization we've long tried to do
it for Z39.50 and haven't been able to agree.

--Ray

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