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  August 2003

ZNG August 2003

Subject:

Re: Betr.: Re: xPath in searchRequest

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:17:15 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (124 lines)

I don't think that I ask for unlimited creativity of the server but
merely to specify alternative responses that are more useful than an
error message. Clients and servers need to become creative when we do
not do that.

Theo


>>> [log in to unmask] 8/7/03 2:47:02 nm >>>
I get the impression that part of the difference of perception here
comes
from the fact that while SRU and SRW are supposed to be different but
equivalent syntactic expressions of the same semantics, or abstract
protocol, in fact the two protocols are faced with subtly different
requirements.

The way I understand it, a large part of the appeal of SRU is the
ability
to build fairly "thin" clients, that execute in the browser using
whatever
logic and formatting tools available there. I can see how putting some
creative interpretations on the server-side there can significantly
simplify the task of building those clients.

SRW, conversely, is meant to fill the same shoes as Z39.50, only
hopefully
better. Here, we have learnt through a decade of bitter experience
that
creative servers are not good for anyone, and the profiles (ie. Bath
and
co.) all emphasise the importance of rigorously phrased and
interpreted
queries. We're trying to reduce Z39.50 complexity, but we can't afford
to
compromise on the control -- if anything, we have to make it
*tighter*,
recognising that the freedom left to Z servers that are not governed
by
rules (ie. profiles) makes them very nearly useless.

So, having made the decision to try to meet these differing (and, I
say,
conflicting) requirements with SRW/U, how do we minimize the damage? Do
we
need a flag in the request to indicate that the server *is* allowed
creativity in the response?   :-)

--Sebastian

At 14:19 07-08-2003 +0200, Theo van Veen wrote:
>I get the impression to be misunderstood. When I ask for number 5
nails
>I do NOT want to receive number 6 nails and I do NOT want the  seller
>say to me: "error, leave the store and ask for something else".  I
want
>the seller tell me "we do not have that but here is a list of the
type
>of nails we have and how much we have in store" but the analogy with
the
>original issue is not perfect
>
>Theo
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 8/7/03 1:16:16 nm >>>
> > Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:23:57 +0100
> > From: "Matthew J. Dovey" <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > I'm trying to recall whether we said anything about returning
> > diagnostics with records.  i.e. in Theo's case he could return his
> > captioned records but also a diagnostic to the effect that XPath
> > isn't supported.
> >
> > ditto from XML versus escaped - i.e. return what you can but also
> > return an error diagnostic.]
>
>This is a bad idea for the reasons Rob's already pointed out.
>
>My client: Find "fruit" and give me brief summaries of the first ten
>records according to this XPath, please.
>
>Your server: Certainly, sir!  Here are ten 50Mb EAD records; oh, and
>by the way, I couldn't do that XPath bit you asked me about.  Enjoy
>your link saturation, sir!
>
> > in our blasted nail example - this would be akin to the seller
> > handing over a bag of size six nails and saying "we have no size 5
> > will these do?"
>
>Not really.  It's more like saying "we have no size 5, you MUST take
>these size 3,546 instead, but you're allowed to throw them away as
>soon as you get home".  If this is Theo's idea of "interoperability"
>then we really are using the word in two totally different ways.
>
> > Personally, I think I'd prefer to get a diagnostic xor what I
asked
> > for.
>
>Yes!  Then the dialogue goes --
>
>client: I'd like a box of number 5 nails, please.
>server: Sorry, sir, we're fresh out of them.
>client: In that case, I'll have number 7s.
>server: Certainly, sir: here you are!
>[hands them over]
>
>I actually think hardware-store analogies are _very_ helpful in
>thinking through these things, sorry Matthew!
>
>  _/|_
>_______________________________________________________________
>/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>
>http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
>)_v__/\  "You took the words right out of my mouth / It must have
>          been while you were kissing me" -- Meatloaf, _You Took The
>          Words ..._
>
>--
>Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
>         http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/

--
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