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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  December 2007

ZNG December 2007

Subject:

Re: Say NO to mandatory Atom Feeds

From:

"Edward C. Zimmermann" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:02:30 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (105 lines)

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:11:21 -0500, Farrukh Najmi wrote

> ATOM 1.0 is an IETF standard and has mass market adoption because of
> its simplicity and extensibility.

Remember, ISO 23950 is an ISO standard:-) :-) :-)

Mass market adoption? You want that.. RSS 2.x has a larger market share
in blogs, cms and news feeds by a VERY large factor. So?

 
> These minor issues are being worked on in the next version of ATOM
> where we could provide useful and constructive input based upon
> practical experience. However, none of this justifies reinventing
> the wheel with our own format.

Its missing A LOT and if we then just pile it into Atom via namespaces I
don't see the point (we could do the same with RSS)... worse still.. what
it has.. needs to, I think, be twisted to fit like Cinderella's shoe...

 
> I am sure that we can find quite a handful of warts in the current
> SRU response format (e.g. lack of even an option if author etc.)
> Frankly I see missing these important attributes (particularly id)
> in an information management context to be sacrilege. Having these
> as required may be over kill but is is certainly better then underkill.

Lack of persistent Id is not a sacrilege but I'd suggest demanding a
mandatory one that is "unique" and has a semantics...

Lets look a some REAL (existing and in the works applications)-- no
theory, not vapour but real.. (Don't think about the systems 10 years ago
but you should start with SRU to think about what many systems might look
like in 5 or 10 years)..

The problems get even more twisted, I think, when we start to talk about

Item Id
--------

In a news system its relatively easy.. just return what the article claims.
For a book or a journal in a library system it too is easy.. But in the
generic case?

What about the general case (which I'd like us to pursue) where we start to
have volatile search directed units of retrieval: where an item (unit of
retrieval) is a "blob" of information deemed by a system as an appropriate
unit of retrieval for the information request.

Its about finding "relevant information" in a sea of information. We need
to-- and increasingly we are-- transcend the notion of object and think
in the kind of informal terms humans use when they talk about information.
If I go to a lawyer and ask about export taxation I won't be referred to the
whole code but to a paragraph in one law, perhaps an EU memorandum and maybe
some sections in various discussions on case law.

In a "static" work such as Shakespeare's plays (where we already apply such
techniques) a unit can be a line, speech, or a group of speeches, an act
or perhaps the whole play or maybe even a collection of plays (viewing plays
in context of a collection).

In a collection of legal documents it can be a paragraph, a section perhaps
a code or a collection, perhaps just a reference.

For the item in a set of plays we can talk about the 2nd act of so and so..
In a collection of legal documents we can address down to the level of
paragraph in a consistent manner.

But what about volatile collections of information where the information is
changing rapidly?

Sure we have Ids but they are hardly longer term persistent.. not really
the stuff for real URIs.. and from a functional perspective why should it?

Fake URIs? Sure we can cook them but why? Fine when for some reason we
want to make an atom page.. or a RSS page.. we can be "creative" and invent
stuff to seem plausible.. And who cares if I lie and they're not persistent!
Heck, a large number of the news feeds we process are not 100% kosher and
worse still are often non compliant with the standards they think they
adhere to...

But as the real result format should we really leave people to invent their
own "meaningless" ids? Or just set new semantics for persistent to mean
"as long as I feel like it" (like 9ms)..... Unique as in.. throw in a
time-code?

What is to gain by all this? Do we really gain wider acceptance by trying
to pack this all down the throat of Atom? Like foie grois I think we
spoil a good bird but unlike it we don't get tasty liver! Nothing wrong with
producing an Atom or RSS response--- we do so as well-- but as the basic
response?

If I'm looking just for something "mainstream" (and something that fits
common paradigms of how the mainstream think today it wants to search) then
why should I bother with SRU and not just opt for OpenSearch?


--

Edward C. Zimmermann, Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich
Office Leo (R&D):
   Leopoldstrasse 53-55, D-80802 Munich,
   Federal Republic of Germany
http://www.nonmonotonic.net

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