RE: Syntax and semantics.

Well, so maybe I overstated my position for effect.  No, I am not actively
working on any RFC's.  I am considering how best to use Z39.50 in several
environments and will be doing a fair amount of analysis.  As I encounter
things that don't seem to fit in other encodings or transport mechanism,
I'll bring them to the attention of the ZIG for appropriate discussion.

I value the opinions and feedback of this group.  Over the years, there is
not a single suggestion that I've brought to the ZIG that hasn't been
improved by the process (sometimes brutal) that it goes through.  I'll
continue to bring my problems/opinions/observations to you.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastian Hammer [mailto:quinn@indexdata.dk]
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:05 AM
> To: LeVan,Ralph; 'ZIG'
> Subject: RE: Syntax and semantics.
> 
> 
> At 16:18 15-01-01 -0500, LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> 
> >I do believe that that most (probably all) things that call 
> themselves
> >protocols are locked into a single syntax and transport 
> mechanism.  My point
> >is that it is still z39.50, even if it is encoded in a new 
> syntax and sent
> >over a new transport mechanism.  So, z39.50 is NOT a 
> protocol.  (That's too
> >strong.  Z39.50 IS a protocol today.  I want to separate the z39.50
> >semantics from the syntax and transport layer.  Then the 
> protocol is Z39.50
> >encoded in BER and sent over raw TCP/IP.  And, in fact, 
> there is an RFP that
> >describes just that.  I'm going to come out with an RFP that 
> says how to do
> >z39.50 in XML embedded in HTTP and another RFP that says how 
> to do z39.50 in
> >URLs.)
> 
> I still feel like this is being done (assuming you do it) based on 
> insufficient analysis.
> 
> I think it was at the San Antonio where Bill Moen first 
> introduced the 
> notion of analysing and isolating the (perceived) strengths 
> of Z39.50 as 
> something that could possibly be applied in other types of 
> communications 
> environments. This struck me as a pretty smart proposal - a 
> good way to 
> ensure that our intellectual work survives as the web 
> community (or any 
> other community) figures out how *it* wants to do IR.
> 
> However, it seems to me that we have never actually carried out that 
> analysis. Instead, we have allowed ourself to get whipped into an 
> ever-increasing panic over the issue of web-friendliness, and 
> we're now 
> approaching what looks like a race to see who can crank out 
> the most RFCs 
> (RFPs ?) and whatnot in the shortest possible time. It may 
> all turn out for 
> the best (and heck, maybe I'll get into the mood and make a couple 
> protocols of my own), but frankly, I am a little concerned. It's like 
> burning down your own village before the vikings arrive.
> 
> --Sebastian
> --
> Sebastian Hammer        <quinn@indexdata.dk>            Index Data ApS
> Ph.: +45 3341 0100    <http://www.indexdata.dk>    Fax: +45 3341 0101
>

Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 10:21:31 UTC