On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> Yes I think Ralph's explanation of his view of
> indexing helps.  We need a few more answers before
> I can construct a concrete proposal. First some
> preliminary observations:
>
> 1. srw indexes must map to Z39.50 attribute
> combinations.  I understand the philosophical
> arguments against this, but as far as I'm
> concerned it's not an option. If we can't tell
> people how to map an SRW search to Z39.50 then we
> will lose much of the basis for srw's existence.

This may be what this list agrees to, but personally I disagree
with this point. To me one of the main potential benefits of SRW
is to get away from the current vagueness of Bib-1 etc attributes.
I think SRW should define clear semantics that should be possible
for different implementations to map on to Bib-1 etc. But not
everyone agrees on what Bib-1 attributes mean, so how can you
come up with a single SRW definition if mandates Bib-1 bindings?

Hence I prefer mandating semantics of the SRW queries, then
providing *suggested* Bib-1 etc bindings. Maybe the new attribute
set stuff is better here, but SRW relying on agreement as to
what Bib-1 means is doomed to failure I suspect.

In practice I am just suggesting downgrading the attribute lists
from official required specification to a recommendation or guideline.
This just means not everyone has to agree on what the attribute
combinations should be (it should be what most people agree to though).


I also disagree that SRW's existance mandates a Z39.50 basis.
Its a natural fit, sure. But I don't see why it should mandate
Z39.50 behind the scenes. Someone talking SRW should not need
to know Z39.50 is behind. I thought that was a goal - to hind
the Z39.50 ugliness behind a nice clean WSDL API.

Alan