Re: ZNG dicussion

> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:45:49 +0100 (BST)
> From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk>
> 
> I agree with the original poster to a certain extent.  The problem
> is not the basics but all of the layered cruft on top of them.
> Encapsulation?  Toss. BIB1 vs EXP1 vs... Simplify. BIB2 looks very
> good IMO.  Extended Services? Toss.  etc.

The problem with this approach is that one man's cruft is another
man's core service.  To pick just one example from your list,
encapsulation is there because people want and in some cases need it:
hence the discussion on this very list a week or two ago about how to
submit a search-and-sort request in one go.

I am opposed to _any_ approach to simplifying Z39.50 that does so by
removing functionality.

(And, IMHO, BIB-2 looks a _lot_ more complicated than BIB-1!)

> > [...] these: the large number of concepts that one needs to
> > understand in order to use Z39.50.  I call this fundamental
> > because it is tied into [...]
> 
> Perhaps we could build a list and go through each in turn to see how
> appropriate or necessary each is?  How each adds to the
> specification.  Everyone says that there's a large number of
> concepts, and there definitely is, perhaps we could get something
> definite to knock around?

This is an interesting idea.  Are you volunteering?  :-)

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "The secret of success is sincerity.  Once you can fake that
	 you've got it made" -- Jean Giraudoux.


(Oops.  So much for my no-more-ZIG-mail-today policy :-)

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 08:05:39 UTC