Re: SV: Z39.50 on the web (and in print)

Rob,


>I think most people would be happy to get something together, even if it's 
>not Explain mapped directly into XML.

- just deja vue I'm afraid. Its what occurred when explain was initially put together, plus all
this type of discussion that seems to come about every year that "full explain is the right way to do it" - and
again nothing else is ever agreed upon.  Thats why ONE-2 folks did explain lite - they have already
done the full explain service and needed something that would be reusable in todays technology
needs.  I cant even begin to become enthusiastic about recasting explain again - I've got enough grey
hairs already thanks.

If someone [tm] were to map out an attribute architectured way of 
searching explain like records, then you could return them in GRS1, XML, 
SUTRS or whatever else you wanted.  Just put them into a database 
called... iR-exPlAin-2 [1] or whatever was agreed upon.

Not really - I  am telling people about our servers in a consistent way that does not need a Z39.50 connection.
The XML data on the web servers is consistent with what can be asked for by the Z client and delivered by the
Z server. Editing XML is straightforward - there are loads of tools out there - system administrators can understand it.
You simply cant edit GRS, or Explain-RS records that way - the records need to be constructed from some other form.

Of course this means that vendors would need to implement the attr arch, 
but they were going to do that anyway for Bath compliance, right? :)

Bath compliance is fine - but the profile approach does not let anyone know that a server can support more than the
profile - and, Bath has different levels of compliance, different functional areas - nothing tells me what levels or areas
a server is supposed to support - we dont have profile negotiation..

You then don't have to worry about either taking an unnecessary hit on 
init, or somehow connecting to a web server to get information about the 
Z server.  Finding out where to go for the webserver is of course yet 
another question that's unanswered -- may as well just use what we've 
already got, eg Z39.50 databases with records in them.

- no - I can post a registry of servers and find that on Google etc.

> And in 2 years of explain lite existing there is probably more usage
> than there ever were explain servers.  For the requirement of

Probably, but you have a big project behind you who all have to use it ;)
If you count all the Cheshire servers, then we may have you beat for 
Explain capable machines.

- but where are the explain capable clients to use them ?

Rob