Re: CCL proposal (quotes)

Before we attempt to "fix" the Z39.50 defintion of Z39.58 (a standard that
doesn't exits anymore), can we please re-examine why regExp-1 (IEEE 1003.2)
isn't sufficient?
--Ray


"LeVan,Ralph" wrote:

> I just spent a week with the e-learning community.  I complained to them
> that making more options did not lead to interoperability.  More options
> just make more work for profiling groups.
>
> We said it was z39.58 regular experssions, for whatever reason, and we
> should make it so.  I should have withdrawn my proposal for a fix to the
> question-mark-digit problem when Alan provided the clarification.  I propose
> that we set aside the vote (this is a motion to reconsider based on new
> information for the Roberts Rules folks) and just put in the clarifying
> text.
>
> Ralph
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 12:27 PM
> > To: zig
> > Subject: Re: CCL proposal (quotes)
> >
> >
> > Alan Kent wrote:
> >
> > > To me this means the documentation for the Z39.58 regexp attribute
> > > already in Bib-1 is incomplete - the textual description of
> > the pattern
> > > has ommitted the Z39.58 documented support for quotes for releasing.
> >
> > Yes, but that was the intent when we defined it, to specify a
> > subset of Z39.58
> > which included the features that people thought they wanted,
> > keeping in mind that
> > there already was a regExp-1 and 2.
> >
> > Regexp-1 is IEEE 1003.2  (and regexp-2 is server defined
> > regular expression).
> > Type-104 came about because although everyone acknowledged
> > that regexp-1 included
> > all the functionality they wanted, people wanted a truncation
> > type  for a
> > lightweight regular expression, rather than claiming support
> > for IEEE 1003.2 when
> > they really only supported a small subset. We decided to call
> > the attribute
> > Z39.58 and define only a subset of it.  (Well, it was a long
> > discussion, and it
> > made sense at the time, as I recall.)
> >
> > I suggest that we leave 104 alone, and define a type 105,
> > which is a compatible
> > subset of IEEE1003.2 but doesn't reference it. It's the
> > reference to Z39.58
> > that's causing the problem. Call the new one regExp-3.
> >
> > --Ray
> >
> >

Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2002 14:14:21 UTC