Re: Re: different explain-lite comment

>>I think numeric USE attributes are so deep seated that its not even
>>worth thinking about changing it unless Z39.50V4 came along with a
>>radical revamp of the protocol.
>
>Beg to differ. V3 allows string-form attribute values, and with the 
>attribute set architecture we can have (string) attribute values that are 
>directly tied to the retrieval schema.

Sorry, I was a bit loose. I really meant internal semantic identifiers
that are not intended for end users to use - which includes numeric
identifiers and string identifiers used in an attribute set.

I actually had deleted a paragraph from the last mail saying that it
may even be possible to define an attribute set instead of my
CCLInfo explain category for string names for CCL fields which can
then be bound to databases. That is, define an attribute set that
only uses strings for USE attributes. But I did not like the idea much
so was not going to even raise it.

Alan

Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 19:34:26 UTC