- From: LeVan,Ralph <levan@oclc.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:21:29 -0500
- To: "'ZIG'" <www-zig@w3.org>
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