[snip, snip, snip]
> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:33:41 +0000
> From: Dr Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > That's a good argument indeed. I'll try not to whine anymore ;-)
>
> It's all good :) As EA says, Challenge Everything.
Agreed. I think that we are now 90% of the way to a _really_ good
Adlib profile that both fulfils the needs of the Adlib community and
exemplifies SRW/U best practice leading to the broadest possibility
interoperability with non-Adlib SRW/U implementations. I take my hat
off to both Hedzer and Rob for both the good taste they have exhibited
throughout, and also for their sheer stamina :-)
I _think_ the one remaining issue may be that of which context set the
proposed new allUnderlyingIndexesIncludingThoseNotOtherwiseVisible
index belongs. It could go in the "adlib" context set because that
what's it been invented for, but I think it has much wider
applicability and so probably belongs in the "cql" set described at
http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/cql/context-sets/cql.html
The difficulties will be choosing the new index's name, and crafting
the prose such that it makes a very clear distinction between the
serverChoice, anywhere and allUnderlyingIndexesIncludingBlahBlahBlah
indexes.
_/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Oh no, you mustn't do that ... They BREED in sewers,
and then you get huge swarms of evil-smelling twelve-foot
tall killer-budgies coming at you out of the drains!" --
Monty Python's Flying Circus.
--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/
|