Date:         Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:51:32 +0100
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Matthew Dovey <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Betr.: Re: result set model for srw
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

One of the things I brought to the SRW/SRU table was some precursory work
that Eliot Christian, Dave Veglais and myself had worked on
(http://www.gils.net/search.html) which included an XML representation of the
query (based on type-101 XER, with a little flattening and some renaming of
element names).

So yes, I think I would agree - but the majority vote was for CQL.

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: 17 June 2002 22:28
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Betr.: Re: result set model for srw
> 
> 
> > Aaaaagh! - SRW is suppose to be about defining an on the 
> wire protocol 
> > *NOT* a user query language (IMHO). These are different endeavours 
> > (albeit admittedly related). I suspect basing CQL on CCL is causing 
> > more confusion here. the SRU case). If that query language 
> wants human 
> > assigned/human readable names for result sets fine - but 
> the client is 
> > responsible for resolving these to the server assigned 
> result set id's 
> > when it passes over the wire.
> 
> 
> Then you agree that we should have an XML based query 
> structure rather than a simple string as that is what we're 
> passing over the wire? =)
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> --
>       ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
>     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
>   ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
> ,'---/::::::::::.    Twin Cathedrals:  telnet: 
> liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
> ____/:::::::::::::.              WWW:  
> http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
> I L L U M I N A T I
>