- From: Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:20:13 +0100 (BST)
- To: rden@loc.gov
- CC: www-zig@w3.org
> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:59:20 -0400 > From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov> > > > > How do you specify an attribute architecture search in a z39.50r > > > URL? > > > > In the z39.50r URL as specified in RFC 2056, you can't specify _any_ > > search, AA-compliant or not. All you can do is specify a record by > > its unique ID. > > Yes but you've taken the question too literally. > Rob's asking: > (a) how do you take the id and turn it to an "AA-compliant" search? > Meaning, how do you cast the search in tems of attributes from sets > developed under the Attribute Architecture as oposed to casting it > as a bib-1 search as specified in the RFC. Oh, I'm sorry, how stupid of me. The unique identifier specified in a z39.50r URL should be searched for using the Local Control Number of Record access point from the Utility set (@attr util 1=4). > And a related question, > > (b) how do you indicate in the url that it this is to be done, as > opposed to the old way. Now _that_ is a good question. > Now the answer to (a), though we've never formalized this, is to use > the utility set access point attribute Local Control Number of > Record (4) (instead of the bib-1 attribute docid). Ah -- Shoulda read to the end of your message before leaping in :-) I think I remember that we did formalise this somewhere, though. It's _not_ under the definition of Local Control Number Of Record in http://lcweb.loc.gov/z3950/agency/attrarch/util.html though, which would have been the obvious place. > Question (b) is something we've discussed but not thoroughly enough. > It may be that we don't need to change the url syntax (though at > minimum we would need to change the procedural section of the > RFC). Yup. The pragmatic answer would be, try the AA-compliant search first, and if the server doesn't support it, fall back to the BIB-1 version. > I think that when attribute architecture discussion starts heating > up again (which may be now) we'll address this concretely. Also, wasn't there a New And Better Z39.50 URL initiative a year or so ago? Where did that go? _/|_ _______________________________________________________________ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike@miketaylor.org.uk> www.miketaylor.org.uk )_v__/\ Orthogonality uber alles!
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 10:20:16 UTC