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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  June 2002

ZNG June 2002

Subject:

Re: result set model for srw

From:

Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:35:13 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (94 lines)

> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:03:28 -0400
> From: Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > I've quoted this suggestion in its entirety so I have context in
> > which to ask this question: who is looking forward to explaining
> > all this to the ZIG, the W3C or anyone else?  Who's going to enjoy
> > writing tutorials for this rat's nest of logic?
>
> I don't see it as all that complicated: If the server supplies a
> result set name then it guarantees (a good faith effort) to maintain
> a positional result set. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.
>
> Is that better?

Somewhat.  (So what was all the rest of that prose about?)

> > If we want to do serious IR, then we need result sets.  So let's
> > have them in the protocol properly and have done.  If we prize
> > simplicity over power, then let's NOT have them.  But please, not
> > this wishy-washy, in-between, will-he won't-he compromise.
>
> Just to be clear: your suggesting we decide either (a) the server
> always returns a result set name, or (b) it never does.

Either of those choices would give us a protocol whose intent is easy
to understand.  But no, that's not what I meant.

> I don't think we want to choose one of these alternatives. We have
> implementors who want to do "serious IR" and implementors who "prize
> simplicity over power".  I think we can accomodate both.

The problem in the current spec. -- well, one of the problems -- is
that the _server_ makes the decision about whether or not a result set
is presistent: from
        http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw.html
at the top of the "Z39.50 Concepts Retained in SRW" section --

        * Result Sets
        After a server executes a query it may include in the response
        a result set name (in contrast to classical Z39.50, the server
        names result sets, not the client). If the server does not
        intend that the result set will remain reasonably static, then
        it will not supply a result set name.

How can the server possibly make that decision?  It doesn't know what
the client's going to want to do with the results.  So the way things
are set up at the moment, the client might want a persistent set and
not be able to use it; or it might not need one, but the server wastes
resources by unilaterally deciding to maintain it anyway.

So my concrete proposal is simply that the client should send, as a
part of the search request, a bit saying whether or not it wants the
server to maintain a persistent result set.  (This approach also has
the advantage of being very easy to document :-)

(Probably doesn't need saying, but to be clear: I have no quarrel with
the server choosing what _name_ (or identifier, for Matthew) the
result set is given.  That's just an on-the-wire cookie, who care how
it's spelled?)

BTW., the SRW spec goes on to say --

        When the client subsequently wishes to retrieve records from
        the result set, it may send a Search/Retrieve request which
        includes either the same query string, or a query string that
        includes the server-supplied result set name if one was
        supplied.

I feel strongly that these are two different things.  I'm going to
take one brief stab at saying why, then retire gracefully -- because
I've had, and lost, this argument enough times to realise that I'm in
a minority here.

Consider a database that continually receives new records -- for
example, a news-clippings database that gets a feed from Reuters.  You
want to set up an SRW client to poll it every ten minutes and pick up
the newly-added records.  So every ten minutes you do your search,
sorted on date-of-entry, most recent first.  You say "give me the
first ten records", but if there are more than ten, you need to be
able to back and say "give me the next ten" _from the existing result
set".  This is _very_ different from re-executing the search and
fetching records 11-20 from the resulting set.

Z39.50 classic was a bit vague on that.  Maybe it's because, back in
the early 90s, you could get away more often with assusming that
databases are read-only (or at least read-mostly).  But if we mean
anything by SRW being an IR protocol for the 21st century, we surely
have to play nice with dynamic data.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <[log in to unmask]>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "I don't want no pretty face to tell me pretty lies, all I
         want is someone to believe" -- Billy Joel, "Honesty"

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=ind0206&L=ZNG&D=0&P=42489
listserv.loc.gov
CC-MAIN-2023-14
53906
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:YUWRMSMNNI6HBBVPPNNWJVHYE7YVHEKH
<urn:uuid:4dca331c-3310-4e1c-bab3-af5b5e64d510>
2023-03-24T23:09:31Z
140.147.239.86
text/html
sha1:3DTD4JAUMNIQQK4FTSZMLKQCKB67V62S
<urn:uuid:3401e822-cd79-4f4f-ae77-2698dc0a784b>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0206&L=ZNG&D=0&P=42489
response
<urn:uuid:9045c362-defa-412b-ae8e-0acf54ce9e35>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-14
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for March/April 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-179
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/