Date:         Wed, 28 May 2003 13:23:48 +0200
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Sebastian Hammer <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: SRW/SRU and Metasearch products
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>,
          [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask] c.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Ralph,

Uh.. I don't think I was trying to propose that *we* roll Yet Another
Z39.50-spinoff (:-), although I suppose it's a good discussion to take.
What would its scope be? SR For Metasearching (SRM)? It seems like if we
make *TOO* many protocols, we as a group will either be branded as people
who like to/are good at making new protocols, or as silly and largely
irrelevant.

But I agree that the crucial thing right now is a dialogue with "them" to
help determine just what they need.

--Sebastian


At 08:49 27-05-2003 -0400, LeVan,Ralph wrote:
>And, of course, you're right.  I guess I'm just resistant to putting so much
>of the complexity of Z39.50 back into SRW.  So let's not do that.  As you
>suggest, it's easy to roll a new protocol whenever we want.  Let's try to
>carry as much of SRW forward as we can and add what they need.  (I'm not
>sure we really understand what they need yet.)  I think CQL will survive
>into the new protocol, but maybe without resultSetNames.  (If the intent is
>to drive down costs, then that's a good candidate to go.)  Clearly searches
>across multiple databases, but not so clearly multiple searches for multiple
>databases.  One combined result set or one result set per database?  (My
>preference is the latter.)
>
>By the way, we decided long ago that holding connections open was more
>expensive than making and breaking them.  So, our clients negotiate a
>reconnect capability and we drop the connection after every response.  The
>client sends a sessionID with the request that comes over the next connect.
>
>Ralph
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sebastian Hammer [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 7:16 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: SRW/SRU and Metasearch products
> >
> >
> > At 23:02 24-05-2003 -0400, LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> >
> > >These sound like serious folks with specific requirements
> > and a commitment
> > >to serious code.  Make them do real z39.50.
> >
> > I have total sympathy for this view, but my sense is that if
> > we can't do
> > better than that, we (ie. the ZiNG/ZIG community) might as
> > well just tell
> > the commercial content providers to go roll their own web
> > service. That's a
> > totally valid position, but it seems to me that it begs a more
> > philosophical discussion about exactly who we hope will take
> > up the SRW
> > protocol, if not those groups. We *were* looking for a
> > broader audience
> > with SRW, right?
> >
> > The funny thing about SOAP and its integration into modern development
> > environments is that it makes it easy as pie to develop customised
> > protocols for just about anything, and people seem to do so.
> > What I see as
> > the major departure of the "metasearchers" is that they have
> > no angst about
> > dealing with multiple protocols -- they have business models
> > and suport
> > frameworks in place for handling it, and the users are paying
> > for the party
> > but they're also, arguably, getting more interoperability and
> > functionality
> > than we have been able to deliver with Z39.50.
> >
> > In that context, the business case for implementing SRW (much
> > less Z39.50)
> > is much weaker than it might have been 10 years ago, when
> > network protocols
> > were black magic and metasearchers might have been
> > technically feasible,
> > but they weren't practical business propositions. And it
> > makes sense to me
> > to at least seek a dialogue with these folks, and see if we
> > can meet them
> > halfway.
> >
> > --Sebastian
> > --
> > Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/>
> > Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101
> >

--
Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/>
Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101