Date:         Fri, 23 May 2003 19:11:46 -0400
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: Library Of Congress
Subject:      Re: SRW/SRU and Metasearch products
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Ok let me ask my question another way. First, is there one of the documents that
formalizes the metasearch model? (Appologies if there is one but I can't find
it.)

I'm assuming it's an extension of the client/server model  with an intermediary
in the middle,  the "metasearcher", so the model is
client/metasearcher/server(s), where the metasearcher is a server to the
end-client  and acts as multiple clients to  multiple end-servers.  (This is a
model we've attempted to formalize in Z39.50 but never could.)  And if so, then
there is a search protocol between end-client and metasearcher, and a protocol
between metasearcher and end-servers. And these are not necessarily  the same
protocol. Are there names for these in the model, like "metasearch" protocol
and  "access" protocol? (I'm asking out of ignorance; surely there's a model
somewhere that I've overlooked.)  For the metaseach protocol,  clearly the
multi-database issue is important, and for the access protocol it's not. (Does
this make sense or am I missing the big picture?)

Which protocol are we considering when we talk about  SRW in this model? One or
the other or both?  My reading leads me to think to me it's the metasearch
protocol, so I'm inclined to think we should reconsider the database issue for
SRW (which is a different view from my earlier posting now as I've re-thought
this).  I also think we should start looking at the Z39.50 dedup service, since
significant intellectual resources went into it, and nobody has implemented it,
since it's really a metaseach function.

--Ray