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:

fundamental objectives

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:04:15 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (57 lines)

I realise that I started a discussion on issues that I think are quite
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
changed the original xPath subject.

There some thoughts on these issues on a more conceptual level that I
want to mention.

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
quite different requirements from both types of usage and sometimes it
is better to combine opposite solutions than find a
compromise in the middle. For the time being I do believe that is
possible that SRU/SRW  meets both types of requirements and that there
should be no need for metasearchers to develop their own protocol.

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
providing "type 6 nails" as being most close to type 5. It should result
in relevant information on the objects that are close or better or
replace what has been asked for, so the user can request the rigth
objects or decide to leave the store. Our SRU/SRW protocol can do better
than just saying "No we do not have type 5 nails" and this could be an
important step into the metasearch.

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
the client/user didn't ask the right question. Clients and servers are
quite capable of neglecting optional data they do not understand without
conflicting with a minimum level of predictability (we do not only ask
questions for which we already know the answer) and there is no need for
flags for all of these optional responses.

4) We should not use "explain" to allow for holes in the protocol. Of
course we need to have some information in advance on a target before
making it part of our lists of targets and we could use that information
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
(meta)search on different targets. I do not expect my searches to work
on an arbitrary list of systems, but my list of systems will not be
arbitrary, but within a certain domain. But even when I do a metasearch
for "any Mercedes" in a library catalogue and a secondhand-car database,
it does not require future technology to return something useful.

We do not have to agree on these issues when we introduce
the"creative/metasearch flag". I was not a favour of such a flag, but I
begin to realise that it is the only way to meet the extra
requirements.

Theo

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