RE: Limiting a search by URL

I'd stick with the 1032; our 5856 isn't anything special as far as I can
tell.  I'm more interested in the rest of the search though; I hadn't
realized anyone else was using word structure like we do.  If that's what
most are using and it's working well, why not continue it in the profiles?
Dana

Dana Dietz
WorldCat Services -- Product Support
Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
6565 Frantz Road, MC 736
Dublin, OH 43017
dietzd@oclc.org  |  800-848-5878 ext. 5064


-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 5:48 PM
To: www-zig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Limiting a search by URL



Vinod Chachra wrote:

> I believe has Dana's description exactly matches the VTLS Z39.50
> implementation for searching URLs.

How can that be?  You're using use attribute 5856? That's a private OCLC
attribute.

Aside from the use attribute, I think a key part of Chris's question is the
attribute *combination*. I had suggested to her that structure of String
combined with incomplete subfield might be inconsistent (the latter is
word-based), and that phrase might be better than string.


>  I
> think that standardizing on a use attribute (should it be 1032 as
suggested
> by Chris or 5856 as used by OCLC or something else?) for URL searches
would
> help.

We could either (1) propose a new value, based on OCLCs 5856 (what are its
semantics?), or (2) craft an implementor agreement based on 1032. I know
1032
doesn't have the best semantics, but it does seem that there are profiles
invested in it.

--Ray

Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 12:52:26 UTC