- From: Sebastian Hammer <quinn@indexdata.dk>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 14:58:58 +0200
- To: Alan Kent <ajk@mds.rmit.edu.au>, www-zig@w3.org
At 10:07 28-09-2001 +1000, Alan Kent wrote: > "I guess providing a 'web service' for access to information resources > to any person with MS Windows on their desktop in a standard way is > not that important to libraries." > >but I decided not to! :-) :-) :-) >It would sound sarcastic when all I really wanted to say is I think >a standard web service to existing Z39.50 resources would sharply >increase the accessibility of library information to applications >outside of a library. Whether such need exists, I do not know. >This would not replace Z39.50. It would solve a different need. It might be interesting to actually make a realistic list of such outside applications that might implement ZNG but who are not doing so at the moment. It could help nail down the actual requirements for ZNG, and lift it from the level of a geek activity ("let's do this because it's cool") into something that may address real problems... I don't have to implement ZNG to know that it would work or that it would be very simple to use for very simple applications. What I don't know is whether it has any concrete value *in the current landscape* of implementation and Z39.50 use. I think at least some of us who are concerned are not just reacting negatively to this because it is new, but because we have an interest in, or commitments in, some pretty complicated situations involving installed base, and some careful, semi-political games with vendors who have to invest time and energy in Z*. As you play in this game, you come to realise that the actual technology plays a comparatively small role compared to the "political" maneuvers. John Kunze once put it very nicely when he told me that the real victory of Z39.50 was not really in its engineering or design, but in the consensus that it represented between a large and diverse implementor community. Having watched a few Z39.50-inspired "lightweight" search protocols rise (sort of) and fall over the years, I am less optimistic than some about the guaranteed success of ZNG. But I'm also not too enthusiastic over some of the purely technological arguments.. yes, it is true that basic ZNG servers are trivially simple to write, and so are basic clients which only access one server and block until the result comes back. But if you need a more sophisticated application that queries a number of targets efficiently in parallel, then many of the most basic tools for implementing HTTP-like protocols break down, and you get back to doing some programming that, to abuse a motaphor, is not for people who enjoy eating quiche (http://www.cirr.com/~barkley/jokes/realprog.html).. --Sebastian
Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 08:59:34 UTC