Re: Syntax, semantics, and the mortality of Init

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Madeleine Stovel wrote:
> [...] 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?

Good question. Let's try to find out, maybe using RDF query as a test
case.

Could someone point me at a few key resources that distinguish the core
semantics of Z39.50 query from the nitty gritty of the protocol details.

I asked a variant of this question before, prior to the QL-1998 W3C
workshop on Web and XML query, but didn't get a clear answer.

If by 'semantics' we mean the pattern of interaction between search client
and database, I suspect this might well be re-applicable in an RDF
context. If 'semantics' includes the implicit model of searching in an
attribute/value environment without notions of variables etc in the query
language, chances are this'll be a poor fit for many RDFQ apps. It'd be
good to figure out which bits of Z make sense in somewhat different search
environments...

Dan

Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2001 19:19:06 UTC