[Ex-plain] Attribute Searches

Mike Taylor mike at tecc.co.uk
Fri Apr 12 13:43:19 CEST 2002


> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 19:19:15 +0100 (BST)
> From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth at liverpool.ac.uk>
> 
> My specific proposal, being access, name and XML mapping:
> [snip]

I could comment on the details of this, but my broader question is: is
anyone actually going tp implement more than 10% of this?  And if not,
let's just define the 10% so as to (A) save ourselves a lot of work
and (B) make the Explain-- documentation less intimidating.

Seems to me that everyone will do all of the XML record, so that was
worth the time we spent (and are still spending) on it.  But that
doesn't apply to all this ultra-detailed searching.  I think.

Sorry to be a downer.

> > > As an implementor I agree wholeheartedly with Ralph's comment
> > > that it's much easier to do search for things in the record.  If
> > > you don't need to add specific term handlers then so much the
> > > better.
> >
> > Just to check that I understand what point you're making: are you
> > saying that when we introduce a search such as "thisServer", we
> > should introduce a corresponding element that's physically present
> > in the record?  Sounds stupid to me, but I guess I have no
> > specific objection if that's how people want it.
> 
> If you only need to map a particular part of an XML record to a
> search term and check if they're identical, this is significantly
> easier than taking a term, parsing it into different sections (and
> having error checking if it doesn't parse properly), then applying
> the sections to different bits of the XML record or structure.

So are you saying that, yes, I understood you correctly the first
time?

> > Shouldn't ProtocolVersion be a qualifier on Protocol??
> 
> I thought that originally, but then it seems strange to say that
> version is a semantic (or functional) qualifier which makes the
> access point more specific.

_Semantic_ qualifier, definitely.

> The term of Protocol and the term of ProtocolVersion aren't really
> related in terms of categorisation... one's a name the other is a
> number (or similar).

Sure they are!  Search for "z39.50" alone and you want all z39.50 (nor
SRW) servers; bung in a "version" SQ of "3" and you're asking for
version-3 Z39.50 servers.  Seems perfect to me.

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike at miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "It took me fifteen years to discover I had no talent for
	 writing, but I couldn't give it up because by that time I
	 was too famous" -- Robert Benchley.





More information about the Ex-plain mailing list