[Ex-plain] ZIG presentation

Robert Sanderson azaroth at liverpool.ac.uk
Mon Apr 8 20:11:44 CEST 2002


> > It struck me today that langUsage is not the same beasty as all the
> > others.  It concerns the language of the records. All of the other
> > fields in databaseInfo concern the database as a whole.  This is
> > more collection level description information?
> 
> I don't understand this distinction at all.

Author/Contact/Title/Description/Restrictions/History all concern the 
database.  It's not the title of a record, or even a group of records. 
It's the history of hte database, not the collection the database 
represents.

On the other hand, langUsage directly concerns the records.

I don't think this is a big deal, just pointing out that it's lumped 
together other information which could be potentially confusing.

> > > less frequently supported deal, and piggy-backing on the Search
> > > Request APDU.  I _think_ Ralph's right, and we should just include

> > It should be somewhere in the indexInfo element. Attribute on the 
> > indexInfo tag?
> Really?  I find it _seriously_ hard to imagine a server which can
> honour piggy-backed search/retrieve requests when the search is on an
> `author' index, but not if it's on a `title' index.

On the indexInfo element, not on individual indexes.  It would be a highly 
contrived situation where you could piggyback some searches but not 
others.  How does the standard represent piggyback searching?  


> Conclusion: I think this is a per-databases boolean attribute.  That
> leaves open the issue of whether it should go on the <serverInfo>
> element (because it's to do with the mechanisms the server supports)
> or the <database> or <databaseInfo> element (because it may vary
> between databases.)

Not databaseInfo, as that's all full text.

IndexInfo is about how to interact with the server as far as search,scan 
and sort go.  Originally there was just indexes inside indexInfo, but we 
now have sortKeyword for example.

If we put it in serverInfo, then it by default becomes part of the F&N 
elements. Which I definitely do not like.  The full F&N record is already 
quite large.  I'll upload my presentation to the ZIG to my server in a 
moment, and has an example of this.

I would like something along the lines of 
<indexInfo  encapsulationSupport="true"> or similar as that implies that 
the following indexes can use piggyback searches.


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





More information about the Ex-plain mailing list