Re: CCL proposal (quotes)

> Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 10:28:27 -0400
> From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
> 
> > Ray,
> >
> > This _is_ a joke, isn't it?  Isn't it?  Huh?  Huh?
> 
> No, it's a serious suggestion.

Oh.

> It appears to me that there isn't much implementation of the
> IEEE1003.2 nor the Z39.58 regular expression.  The reason given in
> the IEEE case is that it's too complex. The counter suggestion has
> been to implement a subset, and the counter argument to that is
> "interoperability problems".  The reason given in the Z39.58 case is
> that it doesn't have sufficient functionality.

Surely both of these problems would be overcome by implementors who
really needed regexp functionality?

> I have a real distaste for the prospect of trying to patch up a
> Z39.58 definition (when Z39.58 doesn't even exist anymore).

I agree with Alan that we need to know _why_ Z39.58 has gone away.  If
it's been replaced -- either by a new ANSI/NISO standard, or by a
reference to one of ISO's, then we should just fix the relation-104
explanatory prose to be a reference to the appropriate new standard.
_If_ it turns out that there's no replacement, or that it's fatally
flawed, then that _might_ be the time to think about hand-crafting a
replacement.

(BTW., as I went to check the value of the Z39.58 regular expression
Relation attribute, I noticed that the internal links within
http://lcweb.loc.gov/z3950/agency/defns/bib1.html
still don't work, and that Position and Completeness attributes are
still not listed.)

> Given that there isn't much implementation investment in either (and
> if I'm wrong on that I expect that people will speak up) it seems
> reasonable to suggest [...]

... that there's not much real requirement for them?

> [...] that we define a regular expression for Z39.50, compatible
> with existing regular expressions, that encompasses the requirements
> of the Z39.50 implementor community.
> 
> So, what do you suggest, Mike?

Sorry, Ray, that I can't be more positive; but what I suggest is this:
that upgrading from the current set of four largely unimplemented
pattern-matching Relations to five largely unimplemented
pattern-matching Relations would not be a big win.

(And yes, I _know_ that stance is at odd with my request for an
SQL-"like" Relation attribute ... but I don't care :-)

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "You question the worthiness of my code?  I should kill you
	 where you stand!" -- Klingon Programming Mantra

Received on Thursday, 9 May 2002 11:06:43 UTC