Date:         Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:26:56 +0000
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: 1.1 release tomorrow morning
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: cc: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

> What you drafted labels SRW/SRU as a "successor" to Z39.50 but
> SRW/SRU needs to be positioned as a profile of Z39.50. You may
...
> I am very keen on pushing uptake of SRW/SRU but I can only do so
> if it is labeled as a Z39.50 profile (ideally, it should be an


I disagree.  It -may- be positioned as a profile of Z39.50, but distancing
it from the older (as in more mature) protocol is something that has
always been important.  The unwarranted intellectual baggage associated
with Z is just too heavy.

It can be viewed as a profile, but labeling it as such in an announcement
is not a good strategy, in my opinion; 'It is based on..' etc is fine.
OTOH, labeling it as such somewhere on the site is okay (IMO) if that
would suffice.


Rob

--
      ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Nebmedes:  http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I