- From: Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 12:38:42 +0100 (BST)
- To: rden@loc.gov
- CC: www-zig@w3.org
> Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 17:59:59 -0400
> From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
>
> I think the SRW idea is to put the baby on the wire, while classic
> Z39.50 includes the bathwater too.
:-)
> Really, I think the idea of prescribing attribute combinations and
> giving them identifiers, where the identifiers go on the wire
> (rather than the serialized, decomposed attributes) is a brilliant
> simplification (thanks to Ralph) which sacrifices only the
> capability to specify undefined combinations, which is what got us
> in alot of trouble to begin with. Bath defines attribute
> combinations (but Bath doesn't take that additional step, because
> classic Z39.50 doesn't really allow it).
Sure it does! If you and the other Bath-ers really think that
searching against a few specific indexes is the way to achieve
interoperability, then you can go right ahead and do it: Just extend
http://lcweb.loc.gov/z3950/agency/attrarch/attrarch.html with a new
type 13 ("index") and define the set of indexes that you want Bath to
be able to search. No problems there.
> So I take issue with your view that we're throwing out the lessons
> of Z39.50, particulary the important work we did with attribute
> architecture.
Well, I've promised I won't comment on this subject again, so I'm just
going to grit my teeth and go do something more useful :-)
_/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike@miketaylor.org.uk> www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ ... but Doctor, surely the odds against that happening are
astronomical!
Received on Friday, 3 May 2002 07:38:45 UTC