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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  January 2003

ZNG January 2003

Subject:

Re: Scan

From:

Joe Zeeman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:33:06 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines)

{deactivating cloaking device}

I actually think that the distinction catalogers make between a
bibliographic database and an authority database is spurious. Authority
information exists to validate the forms of name used in a catalog and to
provide a reference structure. Only a cataloger will have any interest in
seeing authority "records" per se and I'm not convinced we should be
building artificial distinctions into the underlying data model to keep
catalogers happy. So I don't think we should be defining "*-authority" and
"*-catalog" indexes. Next thing you know we'll be defining "*-holdings"
indexes too. Neither should be be defining "*-authority" databases.

I actually think that what gets returned by a scan should be something with
a close family resemblance to an authority record. If the term is an
unused form, it should contain information that allows navigation to or
direct searching of the used form; if there are related terms, these should
be available; if term is a node in a hierarchical structure, it should be
possible to navigate that structure. AND it should provide an indication
of how many documents (or, preferably works) a search on the term is likely
to retrieve.

j.
RLG

{reactivating cloaking device}





                    Janifer Gatenby
                    <janifer.gatenby@OC To: [log in to unmask]
                    LCPICA.NL> cc:
                    Sent by: "Z39.50 Subject: Re: Scan
                    Next-Generation
                    Initiative"
                    <[log in to unmask]>


                    01/22/2003 12:37 AM
                    Please respond to
                    "Z39.50
                    Next-Generation
                    Initiative"






On second thoughts, I think it's better to use the index name to
incorporate
the target database. So if you ask for index "author authority" it scans
that index, the occurrence count means the number of authority occurrences
and it leads to authority records. "Author catalogue" scans give the
bibliographic occurrence count and leads to bibliographic records. By
'loading' the index name it actually removes the ambiguity from the
occurrence count element.

On step size, I've never used it but I think it is designed primarily for
subject browse. There are better ways to do an expanded and collapsed
scan,
e.g. by browsing headings that have no subdivisions then allowing them to
be
"opened" (Windows explorer metaphor). Step size is a rather crude way to
do
a "quick flip". If servers were to support some kind of expansion and
collapse, I'm not certain that many would support any step size proposed by
a client. If we were to contemplate something equivalent to step size, I
would propose a collapsed element and leave the server to interpret its
meaning.


Janifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, 21 January 2003 20:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Scan


> I'm happy with these suggestions. I'd like to dump stepSize and
> targetDatabase.

Jannifer wanted targetDatabase. No one wants stepSize, as far as I can
tell.

Following on from my 'discovery' that index/term needs to be a
searchClause, everything fell to pieces fairly neatly:
  http://srw.o-r-g.org:8080/l5r/?operation=scan&clause=ninja

Accepts clause, numberOfEntries and responsePosition for SRU, and also
xClause for SRW. Adds in echoedRequest ala searchRetrieveResponse for SRU.
Also has a diagnostics list, but everything is Diagnostic 2 for the
moment. [Temporary error :)]

Why 'numberOfEntries' and 'responsePosition'? These are the terms used in
ZOOM's scan, so I just copy them from the request onto the ZOOM object.
Also means for less confusion in having to do translations from one
object's attribute name to another.

Still working on the XSL for the display, but it does a simple linked
table so far which is enough to demonstrate that it works.
(Notably it doesn't use echoedRequest to generate the links, so the
searches are always against the default index and it doesn't generate
next/previous listing links)

Things which would be useful which Theo (IIRC) brought up: Some sort of
marker for where the term would be if it's not present, or that the term
is the one used from the request. Probably another field in <term> ?

Rob

--
      ,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::. 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

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