Re: Attribute Architecture proposal

> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:02:34 +1000
> From: Alan Kent <ajk@mds.rmit.edu.au>
> 
> I think Mike and Rob have agreed on format/structure becoming
> string/words in the Utility attribute set (as distinct from the
> complete proposal I put up verbatim).

Yes, that what I emphatically agreed with; although I did read your
whole proposal and it looked fine to me.  My only quibble would be
that I prefer "Complete value" to "string" as the name for the new
Format/Structure attribute number 4.

> Sleeping on it overnight, I think adding a new 'type' to Class 1
> might be a bit more extreme than people may be willing to bear, so I
> am changing tack slightly and think maybe its less impact to move
> the All/Any/Adj Words attributes into expansion/interpretation.

That approach would also be fine by me.

> I have grabbed a copy of the Utility attribute set definition from
> the LOC web site and had a go at marking up some new text. Changes
> are in green and red (with strikeout).
> 
>     http://www.mds.rmit.edu.au/~ajk/z39.50/util.html

I've read it; it looks good.  A big win for a small change.

> Rob, I am a bit out of touch with CQL - is what I have written up
> going to be easily compatible with CQL? Any suggested changes to
> make it more compatible?

No problem, your AA changes will, if anything, make it _more_
compatible with CQL.  Your string-vs-words dichotomy mirrors the
thought processes we went through in defining CQL.

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@indexdata.com>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "To be totally realistic, England outplayed us in every
	 aspect of the game.  We were vulnerable in every position"
	 -- Guus Hiddink, Holland football manager.

--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
	http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 05:17:29 UTC