Date:         Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:03:43 -0400
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "LeVan,Ralph" <[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="iso-8859-1"

Amen!  Testify brother!

I'm still not opposed to adding other query grammars to SRW.  There is
definitely a small community that would like to see a structured, post- or
pre-fix XML query.  But, I've never heard of anyone outside the z39.50
community that wanted to see Polish Notation, XML structured or otherwise.
The fact that our standard had the words Polish Notation stopped many web
folks from reading any further.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Taylor [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 12:38 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Betr.: Re: result set model for srw
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:21:00 +0100
> > From: Matthew Dovey <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > > > No, No, No, No, No (you've stopped being sensible now Alan!).
> > > > Typically users shouldn't be typing in CQL.
> > >
> > > I just wish to place on record my fundamental disagreement with
> > > this stance.  [...] Some users will want a "friendly" (i.e. dumbed
> > > down) UI for querying.  But in any serious application, there will
> > > be "professional" users who need access to the power of CQL.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Well, this is another issue that will quickly degenerate into a
> sequence of "Oh no it isn't", "Oh yes it is", so I will make a brief
> statement then bow out.  CQL was _always_ designed to be
> human-comprehensible (ain't it so, Ralph?)  Why do that if not so that
> humans can read it and write it.
>
> > I don't disagree that a UI may wish to provide an advance text
> > string way of entering queries [...]  If I want to provide a human
> > typeable query langauge (be it based on CQL, RPN, PQN or whatever)
> > then the client needs to parse this into the on-the-wire messages
>
> But you know and I know that in Real Life, that won't happen.  Every
> single one of us, in our implementations (well maybe eveyone except
> Matthew :-) will have a way for people to type CQL straight in.  We
> know it'll be that way, so why not make it easier for people to use?
>
> If we really do intend that users should never see CQL then really,
> let's go with one of the other approaches: XML Query, the Type-1 Query
> encoded in XML or some such.  The whole point of CQL is its
> amenability to humans.
>
>  _/|_
> _______________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <[log in to unmask]>
> www.miketaylor.org.uk
> )_v__/\  "I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days
>          attack me at once" -- Ashleigh Brilliant.
>