LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


ZNG@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  July 2007

ZNG July 2007

Subject:

Re: June 18 meeting report

From:

Adam Dickmeiss <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:00:21 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (63 lines)

Mike Taylor wrote:
> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
> > > ... with the exception of this brain-damage: "It was the
> > > consensus of the meeting that there should be a parameter (in SRU
> > > version 2.0) to specify the requested response schema: SRU, RSS,
> > > ATOM, ext."
How about response schema XML. Or GRS-1? HTTP can return octet streams
just fine.

It will be fun for client developers for sure:-)

/ Adam

> > >
> > > But luckily for everyone who agreed with this idea at the meeting, I
> > > am too tired to fight it.
> >
> > As this is an issue that need not be resoved any time soon (it
> > would be considered within the OASIS work, for SRU 2.0) nobody is
> > suggesting that you not advocate your position, but we (the meeting
> > participants) feel that you haven't articulated any argument - "a
> > tool should do one thing and do it well" (or however you put it)
> > seems at best a non sequitur. We're hoping you will join the TC and
> > that you'll be willing to share your insight on this when it comes
> > up.
>
> Well, as I said, I am too weary to fight this. To me, making the
> change is like painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa: self evidently
> The Wrong Thing. But if you are more of a Laughing Cavalier kind of
> guy prefer your paintings to have moustaches, then that is ultimately
> a matter of taste, and nothing I say will persuade you. So let's save
> ourselves the bother by my not trying.
>
> > >> Pairing a modifier from one set with a value from another is not
> > >> a good practice.
> > >
> > > It's not just "not good practice", it's impossible.
> >
> > It's not impossible unless the spec says it's impossible. I'd be
> > happy to add explicit prose to this effect but right now the spec
> > does not preclude this behavior.
>
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/cql/index.html#context
>
> Context sets permit CQL users to create their own
> indexes, relations, relation modifiers and boolean
> modiers without fear of chosing the same name as
> someone else and thereby having an ambiguous
> query. All of these four aspects of CQL must come
> from a context set, however there are rules for
> determining the prevailing default if one is not
> supplied.
>
> Nothing there about relation-modifier values.
>
> _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
> )_v__/\ Growing up is the inevitable process of becoming firstly the
> people our parents warned us about, and then the people that
> the people our parents warned us about, warned us about.
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0707&L=ZNG&D=0&P=2138&F=P
listserv.loc.gov
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-33
51743
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ZUVSW7JDUUGXB3T5CTEMB5GV3KOL6GGF
<urn:uuid:b444c072-a920-45c7-bc79-3fb51cfcd371>
2022-08-12T07:09:08Z
140.147.239.86
text/html
sha1:HODOEFA46XXP5B3ZHIZS3Y5SYQY6EIEJ
<urn:uuid:cd2d1219-6125-49ac-a6e7-d77efa7f9f15>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0707&L=ZNG&D=0&P=2138&F=P
response
<urn:uuid:c2944247-2e0b-43c3-9e06-0c3ac3a47c65>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-33
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-112
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/