Re: Explain-lite (Explain discussion)

> 
> The other strength, that I see (although some may argue it is a weakness) is
> that Explain-lite can be delivered over other mechanisms whereas Explain in
> its current form requires the Z39.50 search/retrieve mechanisms. I'd like to
> see felxibility here since I'm looking at how to fit Z39.50 into service
> discovery things such as UDDI. (again this isn't an argument per se for
> Explain-lite)

Matthew, in general this appeals to me - we all want a way for clients (or
people) to learn of our services and databases.  But I suspect many of these
services would be put off by having to carry/hold/convey the details of a
particular protocol. 
  Yes, the Explain-lite sample was interesting / clean to look at.  But
I do not think many humans would be happy about being presented with something
that was 90% information about USE avalues and alternative STRUCTURE values,
and was only of value of running an EXPLAIN client. And note that for a
more complex setup that described all combinations of all attributes (and 
many more search points) that explain-lite would be much less clean to
humanly read, not to mention very large to send in every init.


  If EXPLAIN (in any form) ever spread many people could easily set up
robots that gather the data that I believe you want delivered over other
mechanisms (e.g. databases and their descriptions)
   bob

-- 
Robert K. Waldstein                Email: wald@lucent.com
Bell Laboratories, Room 3D-591     Phone: (908) 582-6171
600 Mountain Avenue
Murray Hill, New Jersey  07974

Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2000 07:07:58 UTC