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: Namespaces (fwd)

From:

Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:03:27 GMT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (69 lines)

> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 06:41:28 -0500
> From: Ray denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Yes, you're right. As you say above you're  "way out of the loop".

:-)  OK.

> > > Sorry, that won't work. has to be
> > > http://www.loc.gov/zing/cql/xcql/
> >
> > Why?  The former seems more correct to me.  If it's just because you
> > have trouble persuading your web server to honour the aliases, I don't
> > think we should let that be a factor.  We should give these babies the
> > _correct_ names, and worry about linkage later.
>
> Honestly, isn't it far too late to be discussing this when we're
> seriously considering announcing this later today, regardless of the
> technical merits, speaking of which, I think the choice between the
> two is relatively insignificant and somewhat arbitrary.

Just more evidence that the release is premature.  I agree with you
that this particularly choice is not an important one, but the very
fact that so much uncertainty is floating around speaks volumes.

> > Let's postpone.  It's the only intellectually honest thing to do.
>
> I haven't seen that anyone's responded to this suggestion, is there
> anyone else who agrees?  I though that the consensus late yesterday
> was to push on.  I'll be at the office in a few hours, will put up
> the new schemas, and I'll be there all day. We can wait until late
> aftenoon to decide.

A cost-benefit analysis is called for here.  Ray's made the point that
it would be "embarrasssing" to postpone for, say, a week.  Yes, I
suppose it would.  However, as I've argued before, no-one's even going
to _remember_, let alone care, a few months down the line.  But if we
release something that (worst case) is broken, or (more likely) works
with fewer toolkits than we'd hoped, or (very likely) turns out to
have a lot of little contradications and holes in it, due to the
hastiness of release, then people surely WILL remember, and the
credibility of SRW -- maybe the whole ZING initiative -- will be
blown out of the water.

Yes, if we release today, we might get away with it.  It's even
possible that we're _likely_ to get away with it.  But the
consequences if we don't are much, much, much greater than those if we
do the sensible thing and postpone.

I do think that the imposition of this deadline has been a very good
thing: it's focussed minds wonderfully, and brought about a frenzy of
necessary activity which might otherwise never have happened.  With
that said, the result of that activity has simply been too much
instability to move immediately forward.  What it's shown us is that
the specs weren't as mature a week ago as we thought.  This very
morning, XCQL has changed yet again -- not due to caprice, but because
of a real problem with a real toolkit.  If we go public today and
another one of these pops up tomorrow, we're screwed.

Having just caught up on those fifty-odd messages, I've seen calls for
a postponement from Sebastian, Matthew and Ralph as well as my own.
At the very least, that should server as a big warning flag.

OK, I'm done.  Your call.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <[log in to unmask]>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Sad as a lonely little wrinkled balloon ..." -- Paul Simon,
         "Crazy Love, volume II"

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