[Ex-plain] Attribute Searches
azaroth at liverpool.ac.uk
Fri Apr 12 13:54:09 CEST 2002
> 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.
I'll implement 100% of it. Which is why I proposed it all :)
Have an Explain-- profile. If you want to be level 1 compliant you need
host, port, databasename. Add authoritative, localServer, recordsyntax
and elementset name for level 2, and level 3 add anything that needs
It's not like there's a zillion access points to support like BIB1.
Or the megacomplexity of BIB2 with a zillion different attribute
> > > 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
> > 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
Yes. Not only that, the search term should be present in the record data,
not just implied by XML structure. This makes it significantly easier to
> > 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.
How do you know that you want *Z39.50* version three?
Can you give an example of how you would actually do the search?
Or are you saying we should do:
find @attr NET 1=4 z39.50 AND @attr NET 1=4 2=1 3
What's the benefit of having it as the same access point with a semantic
qualifier if you have to always AND it together with the same access
point for it to make sense? This says to me that it's a second access
,'/:. Rob Sanderson (azaroth at liverpool.ac.uk)
,'--/::(@)::. 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