 |
 |
Ralph, Uh.. I don't think I was trying to propose that *we* roll Yet Another Z39.50-spinoff (:-), although I suppose it's a good discussion to take. What would its scope be? SR For Metasearching (SRM)? It seems like if we make *TOO* many protocols, we as a group will either be branded as people who like to/are good at making new protocols, or as silly and largely irrelevant. But I agree that the crucial thing right now is a dialogue with "them" to help determine just what they need. --Sebastian At 08:49 27-05-2003 -0400, LeVan,Ralph wrote: >And, of course, you're right. I guess I'm just resistant to putting so much >of the complexity of Z39.50 back into SRW. So let's not do that. As you >suggest, it's easy to roll a new protocol whenever we want. Let's try to >carry as much of SRW forward as we can and add what they need. (I'm not >sure we really understand what they need yet.) I think CQL will survive >into the new protocol, but maybe without resultSetNames. (If the intent is >to drive down costs, then that's a good candidate to go.) Clearly searches >across multiple databases, but not so clearly multiple searches for multiple >databases. One combined result set or one result set per database? (My >preference is the latter.) > >By the way, we decided long ago that holding connections open was more >expensive than making and breaking them. So, our clients negotiate a >reconnect capability and we drop the connection after every response. The >client sends a sessionID with the request that comes over the next connect. > >Ralph > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sebastian Hammer [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 7:16 PM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: SRW/SRU and Metasearch products > > > > > > At 23:02 24-05-2003 -0400, LeVan,Ralph wrote: > > > > >These sound like serious folks with specific requirements > > and a commitment > > >to serious code. Make them do real z39.50. > > > > I have total sympathy for this view, but my sense is that if > > we can't do > > better than that, we (ie. the ZiNG/ZIG community) might as > > well just tell > > the commercial content providers to go roll their own web > > service. That's a > > totally valid position, but it seems to me that it begs a more > > philosophical discussion about exactly who we hope will take > > up the SRW > > protocol, if not those groups. We *were* looking for a > > broader audience > > with SRW, right? > > > > The funny thing about SOAP and its integration into modern development > > environments is that it makes it easy as pie to develop customised > > protocols for just about anything, and people seem to do so. > > What I see as > > the major departure of the "metasearchers" is that they have > > no angst about > > dealing with multiple protocols -- they have business models > > and suport > > frameworks in place for handling it, and the users are paying > > for the party > > but they're also, arguably, getting more interoperability and > > functionality > > than we have been able to deliver with Z39.50. > > > > In that context, the business case for implementing SRW (much > > less Z39.50) > > is much weaker than it might have been 10 years ago, when > > network protocols > > were black magic and metasearchers might have been > > technically feasible, > > but they weren't practical business propositions. And it > > makes sense to me > > to at least seek a dialogue with these folks, and see if we > > can meet them > > halfway. > > > > --Sebastian > > -- > > Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/> > > Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101 > > -- Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/> Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101