LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  May 2003

ZNG May 2003

Subject:

Re: SRW/SRU and Metasearch products

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Wed, 28 May 2003 16:56:53 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (51 lines)

Without doing anything, multiple databases on a server can be considered
to form a single target. The actual originating
database/collection/source can be  part of the metadata record
(dcterms:isPartOf).

I agree with Ray that is is not that complicated to add an additonal
parameter for specifying one or more collections inthe request. As long
as the result is a single response nobody has to change current SRU
implementations when this parameter is not supported, except the
multiple database content providers, that want to support this. The
restriction is that the query is the same for all databases, but I do
not think this is a very big restriction. Having the results of
different databases in a single <SearchRetrieveResponse> may be
considered as a restriction but when records are returned per database
it is not a big deal to have them sorted per database. In other words
the metasearch requirements can be fulfilled to a large extent without
making changes in the current protocol.

However, the thing that is still missing, is the ability to get the
number of records per database before actually  retieving the records.
My proposal would be to allow for an optional response tag that may
contain the number of hits for different conditions in a more generic
way. Something like:

<srw:miscelaneous>
   <srw:consitions>
      <srw:numberOfHits>x</srw:numberOfHits>
      <srw:queryCondition>dbname</srw:queryCondition>
      <srw:queryValue>database_xyz</srw:queryValue>
   </srw:consitions>
   <srw:consitions>
      <srw:numberOfHits>y</srw:numberOfHits>
      <srw:queryCondition>dbname</srw:queryCondition>
      <srw:queryValue>database_abc</srw:queryValue>
   </srw:consitions>
</srw:miscelaneous>

Query condition does not only have to apply to the database or
collection but could be any catagory that a target may use for selecting
catagories and can be used very generic. The advantage of this concept
is that the target may split results in different categories
unsollicited and that the client - having to know the possible
conditions before - can offer valuable suggestions to the user.  In case
of 0 hits this could be used for offering terms that are very much
alike.
My proposal is to introduce the above structure as optional in the
<SearchRetrieveResponse>. Clients that cannot handle this tag just
ignore it.

Theo

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=ind0305&L=ZNG&D=0&P=42555
listserv.loc.gov
CC-MAIN-2023-23
51382
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:2QB3CEPOWMRDFY5K5GX5WETUJK6RW3GI
<urn:uuid:1961b265-75f5-46fd-b0b1-5bdc35752d2a>
2023-06-02T01:54:54Z
104.16.54.16
text/html
sha1:373IZJGKFSTOVE42QBMYI7GBCLW6AU4O
<urn:uuid:995f36c6-89d3-4142-bd50-9725e2b41f29>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0305&L=ZNG&D=0&P=42555
response
<urn:uuid:841c458b-3e90-4324-b161-dcb694785aae>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-23
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May/June 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-151
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (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/