One of the things I brought to the SRW/SRU table was some precursory work
that Eliot Christian, Dave Veglais and myself had worked on
(http://www.gils.net/search.html) which included an XML representation of the
query (based on type-101 XER, with a little flattening and some renaming of
element names).
So yes, I think I would agree - but the majority vote was for CQL.
Matthew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 17 June 2002 22:28
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Betr.: Re: result set model for srw
>
>
> > Aaaaagh! - SRW is suppose to be about defining an on the
> wire protocol
> > *NOT* a user query language (IMHO). These are different endeavours
> > (albeit admittedly related). I suspect basing CQL on CCL is causing
> > more confusion here. the SRU case). If that query language
> wants human
> > assigned/human readable names for result sets fine - but
> the client is
> > responsible for resolving these to the server assigned
> result set id's
> > when it passes over the wire.
>
>
> Then you agree that we should have an XML based query
> structure rather than a simple string as that is what we're
> passing over the wire? =)
>
> Rob
>
>
> --
> ,'/:. 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
>
|