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:

Betr.: Re: nine or six months?

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:47:29 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (39 lines)

While everyone has been struggling with toolkits and namespace declarations for a long time now, it is perhaps time to pay some more attention to SRU. This week we try to get as compatible  as we can with the specs but we have applications that use the current implementation. We will probably make the The European Library's SRU test interface and test-service also available. But I really would like to see more links to existing SRU implementations on the ZING site.    

In relation to this: Rather than trying to explain the benefits of SOAP for searching an author or a title in a bibliographic database (which we could do even before there was SOAP) and solving toolkits problems, please try to find out how much time it will take you to get an URL-based query converted to a database query and convert the response into XML according to the WSDL specs. If we do that, we can make a big succes out of SRU because end-users can benefit from this directly. IMO it is just to early for SRW as there are no generic SRW clients.

Theo


>>> [log in to unmask] 18-11-02 15:00 >>>
At 13:28 18-11-2002 +0000, Robert Sanderson wrote:

>Apart from these unnecessary last minute changes to the WSDL (and [my]
>XCQL!!), nothing has changed since Friday.  All this proves to me is that
>WSDL is not supported in many TKs because it's just not that useful. The
>SOAP sample is still the same apart from some trivial and effectively
>decorative namespace changes.

But the whole idea of using SOAP in the first place is that people should
be able to plug the WSDL into their TKs and boom! -- get an API. If we
don't have this, then my vote remains that we drop SOAP because SRW will
fare better as a straight XML protocol over HTTP that'll be much simpler to
document/understand/implement.

So that makes the WSDL important IMO. I don't know if the changes were
necessary or not, and haven't paid particular attention to the rationale
behind them. What's important, again IMO, is the fact that many key
documents have been changed over the weekend without much of any
verification, and that's just no way to manage a serious release of a spec.
I dont want us to run this like OSI, or even the IETF, but things were just
getting a little ridiculous there, as Mike so aptly pointed out. A fairly
broad range of serious programmers and serious managers paying for their
time (sob :-)  are waiting for this spec. I think that with the range of
organisations and people putting their name behind it, people have a right
to expect something a little more considered.

--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