RE: Positioning Z39.50

> 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. 

No - I'm thinking in terms of the other way around. That the information
content of Explain or Explain-Lite can be stored and obtained via other
means designed for the generic discovery of services. i.e. can be used as
the basis for an LDAP or UDDI schema for Z39.50.

> So why is it so off-putting if I say my primary concern is to 
> load this 
> stuff into my Z39.50 *client*?

It was more the (I assume tongue in cheek) "*I* alright, so I don't care
about the rest of the world" ;-)

> Tearing Z39.50 
> into little 
> pieces will *never* make it more appealing to the W3C types 
> who disqualify 
> it for reasons of their own.

I don't want to destroy Z39.50 (not yet anyway ;-)) and am unfortunately
only too aware of the politics of the W3C.

> 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.

Good - but that isn't coming across to the various communities who aren't
but should be using Z39.50 - take Kevin's recent e-mail about the NLM for
example.

I've spoken to various people about Z39.50 and some are put off by the ZIG
itself as being too introspective and not acknowledging anything outside of
the Z39.50 standard, and also that Z39.50 seems stymied by over-careful
analysis. Agreed tearing Z apart over every new band-wagon is too far in the
one direction, but we need to either address whether we have moved too far
in the other, and if we decide that we haven't then address why outsiders
have the impression that we have.

Having the best technical solution is only half of the answer.

Matthew

Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2000 09:23:56 UTC