Rob -- If the suggestion had been, say, Scan, or Extended Services, I'd
agree. But in fairness to Jan, the alternative to a sort parameter is an
after-the-fact sort, and until we have some semblance of a result set model,
we don't really know it there will be anything to sort, after the fact, do
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: result set model for srw
> > > 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.
> <cheek tongue="1">
> Why not all of the other options in CQL as well? Then you could just do
> a Google style one-query-fits-all.
> Surely if there's any advantage to SOAP at all, then it's that it lets you
> easily parse requests by using existing XML libraries.
> Please can we not just dump everything in CQL, thereby losing the only
> advantage that SRW has over Z39.50 ?
> ,'/:. 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