quinn at indexdata.dk
Mon Mar 11 15:04:15 CET 2002
When it comes right down to it, the term is really used to describe an
artifact which is commonly found in the system implementations *behind*
Z39.50 servers, rather than a terribly well-defined Z39.50 concept... most
of them have inverted files somewhere, and most of them (but not all) have
some notion of "an index". It's always been a confusing term because while
Z39.50 is not very clear about defining these things, many people have
expectations about what they do, and sometimes the expectations conflict.
At 08:54 11-03-2002 -0500, Ray Denenberg wrote:
>Forgive me if I don't keep up with all the discussion, but this point
>Alan Kent wrote:
> > 'index' is not a Z39.50 protocol concept that I know of. How exactly
> > do you map 'index' onto Z39.50? Term List? etc.
>Yes, Term List (and a term list maps to an attribute combination). When
>developed, we first called these things indexes, and changed it to term list,
>simply because "index" was not politically correct. Those of us not too
>with political correctness refer to these, at least colloquially, as Indexes.
>So your right to the extent that index is not a formally defined concept
>but I think it's proper to exploit the concept at least until the PC
>police get on
>it again, and most of those concerned aren't around anymore.
>Ex-plain mailing list
>Ex-plain at indexdata.dk
Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/>
Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101
More information about the Ex-plain