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  August 2003

ZNG August 2003

Subject:

Re: fundamental objectives

From:

Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:26:10 +0100

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (68 lines)

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Theo van Veen wrote:
> fundamental and I did not realise that my objectives and requirements
> (e.g. metasearch) were so different from the rest of this group. BTW, I

I don't think that the objectives are different, I think the methodology
is different. I know that I will be using SRW in a distributed
environment, and I don't see any great issues arising because I'm used to
not sending the same query everywhere and expecting to get back the same
results. I agree with others that this is a naive approach when you don't
control the servers that you're searching, or they don't strictly adhere
to a profile.

> 1) I expected SRU/SRW be used not only for b2b communication but also
> for metasearches with users sitting at the orher side. There may be

I don't think that anyone disagrees.

> 2) Coming back to the hardware store analogy. The store provides
> objects and information on those objects and we have to make a
> distionction between both. When a user goes to a store he doesn't always
> know the right question and has to be guided by
> relevant information. Asking for "type 5 nails" should NOT result in

Yep. This relevant information is also usefully combined in one store
catalogue and every store has the same format for their catalogue and even
the same way to get the catalogue. This catalogue is, obviously, the
ZeeRex record. Nice, eh? :)

> 3) My idea of compatibilty is not just getting the right diagnostic
> saying "no I can't do that" and I also do not want the server to be
> creative. I do want us as a group to be creative in specifying more well
> defined optional responses so communication does not have to stop when

Optional responses mean just more checking to find out what you've been
returned. I'm in favour of record id in a surrogate diagnostic, I'm not
in favour of having to check through lots of alternate response types...
this weighs down the protocol with unneeded baggage as the information the
server responds with could be attained in ways that we've already
specified (eg a search request with schema of DC)

Yes it means more transactions. But that's the correct way, IMO, as
otherwise the server is just returning things which may or may not be
useful, regardless of if it's specified as an alternate response or not.
Just ask for the record again using the record id supplied on the
diagnostic.

> 4) We should not use "explain" to allow for holes in the protocol. Of
> to provide target-specific searches. But on the other hand it would
> improve compatibility if there were some basic searches that would
> always work without the need for target-specific searches for the same

This is nothing to do with the protocol. This is just how the databases
and servers have been configured. If they have put the name of the car
into dc.title then you can surely get back results on a title search for
Mercedes.

So overall what you want is a -profile- not changes to the protocol.

Rob

--
      ,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: telnet: nebmedes.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://nebmedes.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