Date:         Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:27:51 GMT
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: XPath and Validation
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]> (message from Ray
              Denenberg on Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:52:25 -0500)

> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:52:25 -0500
> From: Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
>
> While we're at it, Mike, that is, asking the w3c/ietf/etc experts
> how to represent xpath results, let's ask how they sort result sets,
> scan indexes, represent proximity queries, define abstract indexes,
> or even how they identify schemas.

Eh?  Are these things supposed to be in some way remotely analogous to
the problem of representing XPath results in XML?  It doesn't seem
totally unreasonable to me that the W3C might just have some wisdom to
bring to the problem of how the results of applying to XPath (a W3C
standard) can be represented in XML (another W3C standard).  This
problem is _totally_ independent of SRW and could occur in any number
of non-IR contexts.  It's a pure XML questions.  So it's only basic
humility (not to mention good sense) to ask XML people about it.

Whereas the W3C knows squat about result sets, sorting, scanning,
proximity, abstract indexes and the rest.  Those are IR concepts.  We
are IR people and can be expected to have clearer thoughts about them
than XML people would have.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Unencumbered with facts as I am, I will comment" -- Drew
         Larson in alt.folklore.computers, now the official Usenet
         Motto.

--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/