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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  November 2002

ZNG November 2002

Subject:

Re: CQL Simple Names (IMPT!)

From:

Sebastian Hammer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:24:23 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (55 lines)

At 07:00 14-11-2002 -0500, Ray denenberg wrote:
>From: "Sebastian Hammer" <[log in to unmask]>
> > In the example
> > above, the last parenthesised expression uses the prefix  "a" without
> > defining a linkage. Without any a priori, out-of-band agreements about
>"a",
> > I'd say the above is an error.
>
>Or it could be that "a" is assigned in explain. My point is, I don't want to
>have to include these complicated  rules in the cql spec.

An association given by explain would count as an a priori, out-of-band
agreement in my book. I was assuming that "bath" and "dc" would also be
assigned by default to simplify basic applications, right?

>Is the idea to include one or more declarations up front, optional
>declarations attached to any given search clause which overide those up
>front, and then include rules for precedence/inherritance?

There's three levels I can see, in terms of precedence (I see no call to
bring in fancy words like inheritance). First, there's any global
assignments that may have been made by the SRW maintenance body. Second is
any assignments made in Explain (which by the way serve the primary purpose
of telling the client what index/qualifier sets are available -- not just
the shorthand assignments). Third level is any assignments made in CQL,
which can themselves be multi-level, with the very simple rule that the
inner-most assignment always wins the day in terms of precedence.

Ray, this problem is thorny whether we choose to resolve it now or not. If
we don't do this, you're either *forcing* all implementations to retrieve
Explain records, which then becomes equivalent to an Init service except
it's carried on a different protocol; and worse, without a session, the
information it provides has an unclear scope. This is terrible engineering,
and it *will* be a turn-off to those people who might approach SRW because
it is 'easy' rather than just because it has Microsoft marketing behind it.
Our clear experience from ZOOM was that your formal definition can be ever
so pretty -- but what *really* sells the cookie is the "hello-world"
example on page one of the tutorial that makes it clear that this really
*is* easy. Programmers are inherently lazy (if they weren't, they would
have a different job).

The other option will be a central registry that you will have to maintain
at the LoC until we fix this problem. This  seems like a bad road to head
down for its own reasons.

The last 'option', if you want to call it that, is to say to people: "Guys,
just define your own shorthand names, we don't care". But this seems like a
really weird option, because if this group did not care about
interoperability why would we be having this exchange in the first place?

--Sebastian
--
Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/>
Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101

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