RE: Qualifier Combinations in CQL (Was: Bib-2 and the DC-Lib)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Taylor [mailto:mike@tecc.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 6:24 AM
> 
> But doesn't this point up a fundamental shortcoming in CQL as
> currently conceived, namely, that it's not benefitted from the lessons
> of the attribute architecture in terms of refining an access point
> from one set with qualifiers from another?  That's the thing that
> makes interoperability between cross-domain and bibliographic servers
> and clients possible in the AA world -- surely CQL doesn't want to
> discard that?

I think we have a fundamental difference in our understanding of the lessons
to be learned from attribute architectures.

Claim #1.  Users think about indexes and databases think about indexes.  So
why are we putting attribute combinations on the wire?

Claim #2.  Supporting arbitrary attribute combinations from clients does not
improve interoperability.  That's why we're busy creating profiles now.

Those claims are why I wanted to use indexes in SRW.

Now, I think AttributeSets are a great invention.  While the W3C is busy
trying to create the semantic web, we have done the real work that helps a
client (or client developer) make the mapping between the client/user's view
of an index and the databases view of an index.  Without AttributeSets, we
wouldn't be able to explain the difference between a DC.Creator and a
Bib-1.Author.  But, we don't need to put those attributes on the wire.  And
if we do put the attributes on the wire, then we have to be prepared for
attributes that we didn't expect.  I don't want to do that any more.

Ralph

Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 09:45:04 UTC