[Ex-plain] Attribute Searches

Robert Sanderson 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
> time?

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 
implement against.

> > 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)
    ,'-/::::.        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/

More information about the Ex-plain mailing list