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  April 2003

ZNG April 2003

Subject:

Re: question from Russian student

From:

Matthew Dovey <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Wed, 9 Apr 2003 10:09:15 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (58 lines)

Alexei,

Functionally Z39.50 is a richer protocol, although the intent is to
include much of this in future versions of SRW if SRW is a success.

The motivations for SRW vary amongst the various people working on SRW.
I'll try to cover most of these, although this will be biases towards my
own views! I've copied this to the main SRW developers list in case they
wish to add (or contradict) what I say.

i) Basing SRW on WebServices and SOAP allows the protocol to be
implemented using a variety of modern toolkits. Z39.50, however, works
over ASN.1/BER which is comparatively less well known and there are
fewer toolkits. People working with Z39.50 spend quite a long time
getting to grips with the transport and encoding before even touching
the actual standard itself.

ii) In some ways, SRW is a marketing exercise to attempt to dispell the
myths that Z39.50 is necessarily complex.

iii) Although there are some notes on how to implement the whole of
Z39.50 directly over SOAP, this doesn't form a "natural" WebService.
With SRW we started from a clean sheet. It is the case that some
mistakes were made in Z39.50, some over complexities and some confusion
in areas. This is inevitable in any standard that has evolved over 10-15
years! In SRW we have the opportunity to look at every aspect of Z39.50
critically - retaining those concepts which are Z39.50's strength,
dropping those which proved not to work (or which were never really used
and just added to the complexity without adding any real benefit), and
clarifying those areas where there was potential confusion or were open
to interpretation. Something I've been keen to do is to avoid
unnecessary exceptional cases as I feel Z39.50 has far too many of these
which can catch out the novice.

Matthew

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexei R. Olkov [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 12:11 PM
> To: Matthew Dovey
>
>
> Dear Mr. Dovey.
> I'm sorry for interrupting you.
> My name is Alexei. I'm Russian student.
> I'm doing a research work in Library
> Protocols.
> Can you please write me the main
> advantages of SRW-protocol,comparing
> with z39.50?
> I would be very grateful for any
> information.
> Thank you.
> Best regards, Alexei R. Olkov.
>
>

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