Re: DASL / GILS alignment

> 
> William Fisher said this:
> > 	Others mentioned the Z39.50 protocol and the huge library base
> > 	which utilizes that protocol.
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > 	So my question is: Are you willing to consider extending this
> > 	protocol to cover legacy full-text searching?
> 
> Z39.50 has spent the majority of this decade getting "legacy full-text 
> searching" right. IMHO, DASL's scope is doable as its stands. Adding
> the scope that Z39.50 and "legacy full-text searching" have would make it
> impossible to complete in any of the time frames of the implementors.
> 
	Sure within the context of searching library card files. Since
	Stanford and the Library Research Group worked on that problem
	for quite some time, I think they have a "workable" solution.
>
> Please, if we need full text searching algorithms lets use what we have.
> If Z39.50 is deficient in some way lets fix that. Not burden DASL, DAV
> and, by extension, HTTP with all of the headaches that Z39.50 has already
> sovled...
> 
> Now, with that said, a profile of DASL for dealing with a Z39.50 database
> in a degenerative but standardized way might be something worth doing...
> 
> Sorry to be blunt, but I've seen Z39.50 in action. It solves all of the
> right problems. The end result is that its a very hard protocol to 
> implement in its entirety. But it solves the problems. You pick hard
> problems you have to live with hard solutions.
> 
	I don't have any energy on Z39.50 OR interest in working with Z39.50
	to try and beat DIALOG command searching into that model.

	I do have an interest in searching using DIALOG and Lexus-Nexus full
	text search engines. It was very clear that your protocol is
	pretty short when looking at it to support either of these full-text
	search engines. They are a pretty limited subset but rather
	valuable when you consider the market share the Lexus-Nexus has
	in the legal market. Currently using simple http requires these
	two major on-line vendors to do weird web hacks to crowbar there
	old scheme's onto the WEB and it hasn't been done well.

	You sure don't need all of Z39.50's baggage to support this market.

	If you are really going to restrict the requirements, my reading
	of them didn't see anything that says revision '04' was the answer.

	Where is the multi-lingual requirement satisfied that was discussed
	in great detail in Orlando?

	I gather that you weren't in Orlando since lots of the time was spent
	on the scope of the requirements and possible ramifications of various
	items.

-- Bill

Received on Thursday, 28 January 1999 00:52:07 UTC