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 2008

ZNG September 2008

Subject:

Re: SRU/CQL 2.0: Invitation to participate in OASIS SWS TC Development

From:

Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:14:20 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (85 lines)

Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
 > I want to address issues raise by Mike Taylor.

Thanks for this Ray.

I'm sure neither of us wants to get embroiled in a long philosophical
discussion, so I will be very brief and only respond to specifics.

 > -  "Take up".
 > 
 > That's really what this is all about, for the most part. Extending
 > SRU to accomodate requirements from other communities: geospatial
 > and LOM for example.

Profiling.

 > - "Fragmentation.  Too many choices."
 > 
 > Do you mean "Too many ways to do a given thing", or "too many given
 > things"?  The first "too many ways to do a given thing" was Z39.50s
 > problem, and I don't see that happening here.  And those who
 > participate in this process can make sure it doesn't.

The former.

 > - Complexity added by new features.
 > 
 > Let's look at the ones suggested so far:
 > 
 > 1. Allow Non-XML Record Representations
 > A near-trivial change: extend the controlled vocabulary of values for the
 > recordPacking parameter.

Adds significant complexity to implementations.

 > 2. Proximity
 > Proximity is believed by many to be broken.  Mike, If you don't consider it
 > to be, and you therefore feel we should not tinker with it, then you should
 > participate in the discussions.

AFAIK, one (1) person in the world has specific actual problems with
CQL proximity, as opposed to a Computer Sciency interest in playing
with it.  From what little I've heard of the proposed solutions, they
are much worse than the problems.  Most importantly, if we change prox
syntax, then we break compatibility with earlier versions, and that is
a disaster.

 > 3. Faceted Searching
 > There have been a number (more than one) of calls to add faceted search
 > capability to SRU. From initial discussions it does not appear that it will
 > be difficult.

Good.

 > 5. Multiple Query Types
 > Part of the "take-up" effort.

Total disaster for interoperability.  "Take-up" of a supposedly
interoperable standard is meaningless if "taking up" consists of
continuing to do what you were doing already and slapping an "SRU"
label on it.  One query type to bring them all and in the, er, light,
bind them!

 > 6.  Eliminate the Version and Operation Parameters
 > This is a simplification, not added complexity.  And there will be an annex
 > included on how a 2.0 system can interoperate with a lower-version.

Broken.

 > 7. Alternative Response Formats
 > Too complicated to cover in this message. I know how you feel about it.
 > Again, if you feel so strongly you should participate in the
 > discussion.

Broken.

I wonder how many of the people on this list will undertake to
actually implement the results of this round of respecifying.  My
guess is, somewhere between zero and two.

 _/|_	 ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <[log in to unmask]>    http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "I could be arguing in my spare time" -- Monty Python's Flying
	 Circus.

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