 |
 |
Rob -- If the suggestion had been, say, Scan, or Extended Services, I'd agree. But in fairness to Jan, the alternative to a sort parameter is an after-the-fact sort, and until we have some semblance of a result set model, we don't really know it there will be anything to sort, after the fact, do we? --Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 1:51 PM Subject: Re: result set model for srw > > > I would also like to see sort as an option > > > within CQL, not a separate > > > service. > > > > Jan -- would you like to suggest what the sort > > parameter would consist of? (First, I suppose we > > need to see what our result set model will look > > like.) As Ralph and others have noted, even > > though a sort option would provide significant > > potential for optimization we've long tried to do > > it for Z39.50 and haven't been able to agree. > > <cheek tongue="1"> > > Why not all of the other options in CQL as well? Then you could just do > a Google style one-query-fits-all. > > </cheek> > > Surely if there's any advantage to SOAP at all, then it's that it lets you > easily parse requests by using existing XML libraries. > > Please can we not just dump everything in CQL, thereby losing the only > advantage that SRW has over Z39.50 ? > > Rob > > -- > ,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask]) > ,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/ > ,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142 > ,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777 > ____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/ > I L L U M I N A T I