If he gets what he needs from A9, does the technical superiority
really matter?
-M
On Mon Sep 12 13:06:29 EDT 2005, Mike Taylor
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:55:17 -0500
>> From: Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> > http://curtis.med.yale.edu/dchud/log/project/linkstack/more-unalog-
>> > search-with-opensearch-and-content-indexing
>>
>> The three bullet points at the bottom of the blog summarize the
>> author's experience:
>>
>> * The mess that is the SRW/U specs slows adoption
>> * The lack of an OAI-PMH-esque testing tool makes "compliance"
>> difficult to test
>> * The absence of a public-facing a9-style SRW/U clearinghouse
>> limits its potential impact significantly
>>
>> These points echo tasks the group articulated as "next steps" in
>> regards to adoption. See:
>>
>>
>> http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/forum-june05-output/steps.html
>
> Yes. The infuriating thing is that there is _nothing_ hard about
> any
> of this. Given the funding it would take maybe two months tops
> to
> resolve all three of these problems -- nailed. But because
> (unlike
> OpenSearch) no single big company is sufficiently committed to
> SRU to
> make it happen, we still struggle.
>
> For what it's worth, I thought the blog was very good; spot on,
> in
> fact. It hurt to read, but stung worse because I felt its
> justice.
> What hurt most was that the superficial problems with SRU
> completely
> hid its order-of-magnitude technical superiority from the
> blogger.
>
> _/|_
> ___________________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
> )_v__/\ "Not raw -- cooked" -- Monty Python's Flying Circus.
>
>
--
Mark Hinnebusch
Florida Center for Library Automation
|