On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> I've been reconsidering that last opinion and decided that I see no problem
> with defining an index in terms of both attribute architectures. Part of
> the purpose of the mapping is to enable z39.50 gateways and it would be nice
> to be able to use the attribute architecture appropriate for the server.
> (Put another way, I'm building a gateway to my server and it would croak
> with a list of attributes from the new architecture.)
Or both, if some semantic equivalence between the two can be agreed upon.
(See also the repeatability of <map> and the use of the 'primary'
attribute in ZeeRex :) )
That said, I think that there are three possible outcomes from so closely
coupling Z39.50 attributes as a way to define SRW indexes for people who
aren't already in the Z39.50 cadre:
a) They don't bother with SRW and go their own way
b) They don't bother to define an indexset at the location pointed to
c) They put in the effort to understand Z attributes
I'm not saying that it's political suicide, but understanding all the
different attributes in Z39.50 is a large intellectual barrier to entry
for SRW in my opinion.
_Excellent_ documentation will be needed for any non Z39.50 person to
implement SRW correctly.
,'/:. 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