> 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
> we? --Ray
Right, but it doesn't need to be in CQL, it could be an parameter in the
XML request and still be presented at the same time as the search.
It's much easier to parse XML than CQL. I'll need to write my own CQL
parser, I won't need to write my own XML parser.
> > > > 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.
> > 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])
,'--/::(@)::. 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