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  September 2003

ZNG September 2003

Subject:

Betr.: Re: proposal unsollicited response items

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:48:14 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (102 lines)

Matthew, I like the idea of inheritance, but I don't like the idea of
having private extensions, because that is where interoperaiblity stops.
It means that clients have to know in advance with what kind of server
they are talking. And that is what I want to avoid. But maybe I do not
understand it completely. Does your idea mean that a client can send an
theoSearchRequest to a conventional SRW server and can a server send a
theoSearchResponse to a conventional SRW client?

If there is a function, service, message or field, that is used by
several clients and servers but not all, we have to find the right
balance between making it optional and "neglectable" part of the
standard on one side and make it a private extension on the other side.
I would go for "make it a part of the standard as it is expected to be
used by more clients and servers". When something is irrelevant to the
outside world make it private.

I still believe a data driven approach is needed in addition to a
request driven approach. Although the creativity flag was not my
invention I suggested it to make my proposal more acceptable. But anyway
we need to prevent "private creativity initiatives" when we still can
guide this in the right way befor it is too late. We can not stop them
because those initiatives fill a need.

Theo


>>> [log in to unmask] 9/23/03 12:39:46 nm >>>
One of the things I want to do with SRW 1.1 is to restructure the XML
Schema document slightly (making the elements global) so that it is
easier to import and extend the schema. This is merely an editorial
change - the XML structures on the wire don't change just the way that
those structures are described.

This change is primarily so that in principle a schema for SRW 1.1
could
reference the schema for SRW 1.0 (i.e illustrate that it is anm
extension etc.) - similarly 1.2 could reference 1.1, etc.

However, this (and potentiall WSDL 1.2 porttype inheritence) would
allow
someone like Theo to create their own bespoke extensions to SRW, i.e.
they can create their own search/retrieve WebService using SRW as a
basis/foundation. A TheoSRW server for instance would support the
searchRetreive operation of SRW as is (hence we have interoperability)
but also a new theoSearchRetreive operation which uses the SRW
searchRetreiveResponse and Request structures with additional bespoke
extensions which Theo's private clients and servers can support.

However, I agree with Mike that the base SRW protocol should not have
a
"server becomes creative" flag.

Matthew




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: proposal unsollicited response items
>
> > Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:19:47 +0200
> > From: Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > I would like to propose the addition of some reserved tags in SRW
at
> > the level of <SRW:records> to allow for unsollicited response
items
> > like fuzzy match terms and an index scan.
>
> (Sorry, Theo.  It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it.)
>
> I propose that we do no such thing.  Once more, the lesson from a
> decade of Z39.50 is that, in order to achieve _meaningful_
> interoperability -- that is, something you can use for finding
useful
> stuff rather than merely for throwing demos together -- we need
_more_
> precision and rigidity, not less.
>
> > An example will be search for any and let the server return how
many
> > hits there are for each index.
>
> Good gracious gravy, man, NOOOooooOOoOOO!  :-~
>
>  _/|_
> _______________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>
> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
> )_v__/\  "Boy meets monolith; boy loses computer; monolith gets boy"
>          -- Roger Wilmot's plot summary of 2001: A Space Oddysey
>
> --
> Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
>         http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/
>
>

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