Syntax, semantics, and the mortality of Init

As usual, I'm chiming in late on a topic that has already been
gone over.  This time, it's what began as Bob's suggestion to make
Init optional.

Pieter said:

>The people who complain that Z39.50 is too complex will always find it too
>complex even [if] we omit the Init. (The attribute set structure is quite complex
>compared to the Init.)

And Ralph said:

>I think we've let the interoperability concern paralyze us and has caused us
>to miss some opportunities.  We sit around tables telling each other that
>community X is doing searching stuff and they're going to have to relearn
>all the things that we've already learned and wouldn't it be so much better
>if they just used z39.50.  But, community X doesn't want to do BER and they
>don't want to do raw TCP/IP and we just let them drift off on their own.
>
>But, if we stop insisting that they have to use our protocol to use our
>semantics, then they get to take advantage of all the work we've done.  What
>they lose is access to all our databases.  But, if they use our semantics
>and there is a business reason for community X to access our databases, or
>vice versa, then gateways are nearly trivial.

What I wonder is whether, once we stop insisting that "they" use our
protocol, will they really step up to using our semantics?  Or, as
Pieter guesses, will they feel that the semantics are too complex to
support?

-- Madeleine (Lennie) Stovel
   RLG

To:  WWW-ZIG@W3.ORG

Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2001 19:10:57 UTC