[Ex-plain] RE: Explain--

Mark Needleman - DRA mneedlem at dra.com
Fri Apr 5 18:25:02 CEST 2002


Rob

i think the question is query types sending element 1003 is part of
sending a type-1 query - the question is does this server even support the
type-1 query or not - thats what i think is wanted to be added to the dtd

mark


On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Robert Sanderson wrote:

> 
> (As I've zero interest in the holdings schema, I'll write up how my 
> presentation went yesterday)
> 
> 
> > > > > What query types they support.  (Some blow up if you send
> > > > > type-101.)
> > > This is a good one, which I think we should include.  I know that
> > > our server at least has type 0 as a way to transform SQL queries
> > > into Z, but there's more useful applications for te different query
> > > types.
> > 
> > I guess we could support this.  But can't clients just submit a
> > Type-whatever query and see whether it's accepted?  Or, Ralph, when
> > you that some servers "blow up", do you mean in some completely
> > catastophic way?
> 
> You could just submit a search with use 1003 to see if they support author 
> searches using that logic.  
> 
> 
> > > Argh, encapsulation, we hates it.  But at least a global 'supports
> > > encapsulation' or not field somewhere would be useful.
> > No, supporting encapsulation is a much bigger deal, or at least a much
> > less frequently supported deal, and piggy-backing on the Search
> > Request APDU.  I _think_ Ralph's right, and we should just include a
> > boolean saying whether piggy-backing is supported (per-server?
> > Per-DB?)
> 
> It should be somewhere in the indexInfo element. Attribute on the 
> indexInfo tag?
> 
> 
> > > > > Do they support elementSetNames.  (Horrifying as it might seem,
> > > > > there are such servers.)
> > > I think we can already do this, by having a record syntax tag with
> > > no elementset subtags.
> 
> > Surely a <recordSyntax> with no <elementSets> merely means (as with an
> > omitted "sort" attribute on an <index> element) that we're not saying
> > anything one way or another?  Otherwise we need to mandate that the
> > <recordSyntax>'s <elementSet>s are an exhaustive list, which doesn't
> > seem realistic to me.
> 
> I think that if you're going to describe a server which has no 
> attributesets, then we shouldn't have a specific way of saying 'this 
> server breaks the rules'.  On the other hand, if a client encounters an 
> Explain-- record with no elementsets defined in it, then IMO it should be 
> free to interpret that as 'we don't have any elementsets' rather than 'my 
> author was too lazy to put in the elementsets'.  
> 
> Rob
> 
> -- 
>       ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson (azaroth at liverpool.ac.uk)
>     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
>   ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
> ,'---/::::::::::.    Twin Cathedrals:  telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
> ____/:::::::::::::.              WWW:  http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
> I L L U M I N A T I
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ex-plain mailing list
> Ex-plain at indexdata.dk
> http://www.indexdata.dk/mailman/listinfo/ex-plain
> 





More information about the Ex-plain mailing list