I don't think from an implementer's viewpoint that the age of the diagnostic is of any importance. Whilst we still have "room" for these diagnostics in their correct place, why don't we put them there, burying our heads until the time we need a new CQL diagnostic. Perhaps then we could start a new range with a heading group of "later defined CQL diagnostics" with a nice fat number range. I think that the diagnostics in Z39.50 are a mess. Janifer -----Original Message----- From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 02 June 2004 20:15 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: diagnostic numbers > Why not 47 and 48? Well, for one, because we'll run out of that range real fast (after 49), so the next diagnostic in that category will need a high number. Beginning now with a new range is like what we did with Z39.50 diagnostics which worked well, allowing us to easily associate a diagnostic with a particular era. --Ray ________________________ The information in this electronic mail message is private and may be confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the recipient. Should you receive this message by mistake, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or use of this message is prohibited. Please delete this message and notify the sender immediately by return email. OCLC PICA accepts no liability for the improper transmission of information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt. Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we do advise you to scan attachments before opening them.