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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  September 2002

ZNG September 2002

Subject:

Re: index definitions

From:

Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:59:47 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (62 lines)

> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:49:18 -0400
> From: Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
>
> The point [of the document we're all arguing about] is that there
> will be a way to express the intended semantics of the index.)

Ray and everyone,

I honestly do not imagine that one single person in the whole world
will look at this document in order to understand the semantics of a
CQL qualifier. Seriously: can you imagine it? "Now, what does
titleWord mean? Oh, I see it's defined as the combination of _this_
attribute from the Utility Set, and _this_ one from the Cross Domain
set, and _this_ one from the BIB-2 set. I wonder what these
'attribute' thingies are?"

Do we really believe that there is so much as a single developer out
there who, in that situtation, would go to all the trouble of finding
out what an "attribute" is, how they fit into "attribute sets" and how
their use is described by the "attribute architecture"; and then go
off and read the various attribute set semantics documents?

It ain't gonna happen. Every single developer will just go, "Oh,
titleWord: that means a word in the title".

I was not joking when I proposed my alternative CQL qualifer semantics
document. I truly feel that it would be more useful to the community
that the white elephant being worked on now.

(Caveat: the CQL->Z39.50 mapping _is_ potentially useful for people
implementing gateways, though in practice you can bet the last two
feet of your lower intestine that people making gateways to actual
servers will have to tweak the "offical" mappings to make them work
right anyway.)

> > I also disagree that SRW's existance mandates a Z39.50 basis.
>
> What I'm saying is that srw's existence mandates *the possibility
> of* Z39.50

!!!

        "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
                -- Vroomfondel and Majikthise, philosophers.

> > I suggest an explain tag per index which records if it supports
> > proximity or not. If it doesn't then a multi word search term
> > would be treated as implicit AND as oposed to implicit PROX.
>
> That just seems to me too complicated and too confusing.

Here, at least, I agree! I strongly oppose this tendency to bundle
more and more stuff into explain. If we learned one less from Explain
Classic (we did, didn't we? _Please_ say we did! :-) it is surely
that if it's too complicated, no-one will implement it. Let's not
fall into that trap again.

 _/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Sixteen is a compromise between not very many and quite a
         lot" -- Mike Selway.

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