Re: Positioning Z39.50

Matthew,

Explain-lite, as far as I can tell from the example in Norway, is 100% 
oriented around describing a Z39.50 server - it's not a generic mechanism 
for describing any type of resource and would need much work to get there. 
So why is it so off-putting if I say my primary concern is to load this 
stuff into my Z39.50 *client*? If I want to put the stuff on a web-server 
as well, that would be a fairly trivial effort, not something that requires 
me to randomly grap one aspect (the least known one) and thrusting it into 
a completely different environment. It strikes me as half-baked. Again, I 
will do it if that's the majority opinion because I am in the 
interoperability business. But I reserve the right to think it's an 
ill-informed or at least questionable objective (or rather, one driven by 
marketing buzz rather than careful analysis). Tearing Z39.50 into little 
pieces will *never* make it more appealing to the W3C types who disqualify 
it for reasons of their own. But it could well have a hugely negative 
impact on our momentum, and by jove, from where I am sitting, Z39.50 has 
momentum - fueled by careful analysis and incremental development, not by 
running after each and every random marketing phenomenon.

--Sebastian

At 09:36 21-11-00 +0000, Matthew Dovey wrote:
> > As a client developer, I am not mostly
> > interested in getting
> > Explain-anything info via HTTP or LDAP - my clients are all
> > exceptionally
> > good at Z39.50 already. It works for me.
>
>No, offence, Sebastian, but I think it is precisely that sort of
>introspective attitude puts people off looking at Z39.50. Hence, the fact I
>keep harping about positioning Z39.50 amongst the whole range of
>client/server standards.
>
>Matthew

--
Sebastian Hammer        <quinn@indexdata.dk>            Index Data ApS
Ph.: +45 3341 0100    <http://www.indexdata.dk>    Fax: +45 3341 0101

Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2000 08:19:34 UTC