[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [search-ws] Element Set Names
People offer queries that they want to see respresented in SRU/CQL, often with select clauses. It seems to me that the inability to represent these is a fairly big weakness. Do we simply say "we don't do that, use SQL" (or some other query language)? --Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janifer Gatenby" <Janifer.Gatenby@oclc.org> To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 8:07 AM Subject: RE: [search-ws] Element Set Names ( was Re: [search-ws] Three things) I seem to remember when we first talked about ZNG - ZING - SRU that we wanted to keep it simple and getting rid of eSpec and eSpecQ was unanimous. I'm not sure that we know any Z39.50 servers that will accept element set names of any complexity, as they already had full and brief to choose from. As Ralph says, they can just have a few schemas such as MARC21 schema brief and MARC21 fuller and MARC21 fullest. As the focus of search-ws is to be more considerate of the server and its capability, if nobody has asked for this, then we should NOT do it. Janifer -----Original Message----- From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov] Sent: 09 October 2008 21:14 To: search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [search-ws] Element Set Names ( was Re: [search-ws] Three things) Thanks, Ralph. Anyone else have an opinion on element set names? --Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org> To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>; <search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 3:06 PM Subject: RE: [search-ws] Three things > So if someone wants MODS records, but just "title" and "author", how do > you suggest that would be requested? I don't want that feature. It would require considerable additional complexity in the explain record. We'd end up needing something like XPath to let the clients specify the elements they want. Just too darn ugly. If you have a customer with a regular need for that particular pair of element, create a new schema with just those elements and let the client pick that. > "3) 'window 'relation. Absolutely not." > > Why? It's so complicated that no two people could ever agree what the queries meant. That second example make me want to weep. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]