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  April 2004

ZNG April 2004

Subject:

Re: Praise, questions and protocol pruning

From:

Martin Malmsten <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:44:43 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (78 lines)

Thanks for your replies, and sorry for taking so long, I've been out of
office for a while.

> It's not necessary, but if we don't define what happens when the client
> sends ^ in a word list, there'll be interoperability problems as
> developers make up their own minds as to what it might mean.
It is only necessary to define what it means *if* it should mean
something. If left-anchored words in word lists were not allowed, it
would not mean  anything special ("^cat" would match the actual string
"^cat"). Left anchored search for normal strings could be performed
using a modifier instead:

  dc.title equals/anchor=left "cat"

> Yes.  Where was that example, because it's out of date.
It's at http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/cql/, the faulty example is
at http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/cql/context-sets/cql.html

> I agree, but would like to highlight 'not widely used'.  The toolkits that
> SRW relies on are pretty widespread and available for free in many
> different languages.
That's why I have much higher hopes for SRU/SRW! Though I would like to
see some official parser files (e.g for JavaCC). I'll gladly contribute
mine when the server is implemented.

> > "A B C" --> [A, B, C]
> > "\"A B\" C" --> ["A B", C]
>
> In CQL?
Yes!

> This one really is necessary.
You are right.

> > * the "relevant" term funtion
> > How can the term function order the result set? What happens if two
> > terms have the "relevant" term function?
>
> Then the relevancies are merged, and the resultset re-sorted.
Doesn't that imply that how "relevant" a record is has to do with the
record only, and not the query? For example I would assume that the
query "dc.author any/relevant Strindberg" would rank titles with
Strindberg as main author higher than ones with him as illustrator. The
query "anywhere any/relevant Strindberg" would probably sort records
completely different. The relevancies of the first result set does not
necessarily mean the same thing when compared to the ones in the second
result set.

I would like to see ordering in the CQL though, instead of SortKeys.
Something like "title = cat order by author".

> > * XCQL
> > Why, oh why is this necessery? If it's only used for debugging, then put
> > it somewhere else, like in the diagnostics.
>
> It's only used in echoedResponse now (and debugging)
Yes, but it forces everyone to implement it.

> Prefixes are useful in the following situation:
>
> You have a gateway which sends the same query out to multiple servers,
> which may or may not use the same default names for context sets.
>
> In this way, you can name the context set maps yourself to ensure that dc
> is dublin core, not the dark custard context set.
> The counter position to this is that this is the job of profiles, and is
> in the Explain record anyway.
> The counter-counter argument was that the explain record may conceivably
> change between when you retrieve it and when you use the information in
> it (as there are no persistent connections)
But what is the probability of this actually happening? Everyone is
forced to implement it, the CQL looks hideous, for the chance that
someone changes the meaning of a prefix at the same time that someone
uses a cached explain-record. I'd say that his is definitely the
responsibility of the client.

/M

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