To sidestep the issue of strict/relaxed and face the real world of spotty implementation of standards (and it seems to apply however non/arcane they are) we provide a configurable "strictness" flag and the ability to have non-supported indexes and some functions mapped to supported ones on a Source by Source basis. Admins can allow users to have this strict/relaxed switch or not. And users can apply it or not. For both the majority case is "not" (i.e. relaxed is used).

Peter


Dr Peter Noerr
CTO, MuseGlobal, Inc.

+1 415 896 6873 (office)
+1 415 793 6547 (mobile)
www.museglobal.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 08:43
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] exact title searches with z39.50
> 
> It can be a chicken-egg thing too.  Maybe more users would be doing more
> sophisticated searches if they actually _worked_.
> 
> Plus I know that I could write systems to use federated search to embed
> certain functionality in certain places, if more sophisticated searches
> worked more reliably.
> 
> Walker, David wrote:
> > I'm not sure it's a _big_ mess, though, at least for metasearching.
> >
> > I was just looking at our metasearch logs this morning, so did a quick
> count: 93% of the searches were keyword searches.  Not a lot of exactness
> required there.  It's mostly in the 7% who are doing more specific searches
> (author, title, subject) where the bulk if the problems lie, I suspect.
> >
> > --Dave
> >
> > ==================
> > David Walker
> > Library Web Services Manager
> > California State University
> > http://xerxes.calstate.edu
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ray
> Denenberg, Library of Congress [[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:32 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] exact title searches with z39.50
> >
> > Right, Mike. There is a long and rich history of the debate between loose
> > and strict interpretation, in the world at large, and in particular,
> within
> > Z39.50, this debate raged from the late 1980s throughout the 90s.  The
> > faction that said "If you can't give the client what is asks for, at
> least
> > give them something; make them happy" was almost religious in its zeal.
> > Those who said "If you can't give the client what it asks for, be honest
> > about it; give them good diagnostic information, tell them a better way
> to
> > formulate the request, etc. But don't pretend the transaction was a
> success
> > if it wasn't" was shouted down most every time.   I can't predict, but
> I'm
> > just hoping that lessons have been learned from the mess that that
> mentality
> > got us into.
> >
> > --Ray
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mike Taylor" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:43 AM
> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] exact title searches with z39.50
> >
> >
> >
> >> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
> >>
> >>>> The irony is that Z39.50 actually make _much_ more effort to
> >>>> specify semantics than most other standards -- and yet still
> >>>> finds itself in the situation where many implementations do not
> >>>> respond correctly to the BIB-1 attribute 6=3
> >>>> (completeness=complete field) which is how Eric should be able to
> >>>> do what he wants here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not that I have any good answers to this problem ... but I DO
> >>>> know that inventing more and more replacement standards it NOT
> >>>> the answer.  Everything that's come along since Z39.50 has
> >>>> suffered from exactly the same problem but more so.
> >>>>
> >>> I think this remains to be seen for SRU/CQL, in particular for the
> >>> example at hand, how to search for exact title.  There are two
> >>> related issues: one, how arcane the standard is, and two, how
> >>> closely implementations conform to the intended semantics. And
> >>> clearly the first has a bearing on the second.
> >>>
> >>> And even I would say that Z39.50 is a bit on the arcance side when
> >>> it comes to formulating a query for exact title. With SRU/CQL there
> >>> is an "exact" relation ('exact' in 1.1, '==' in 1.2).  So I would
> >>> think there is less excuse for a server to apply a creative
> >>> interpretation. If it cannot support "exact title" it should fail
> >>> the search.
> >>>
> >> IMHO, this is where it breaks down 90% of the time.  Servers that
> >> can't do what they're asked should say "I can't do that", but -- for
> >> reasons that seem good at the time -- nearly no server fails requests
> >> that it can "sort of" fulfil.  Nine out of ten Z39.50 servers asked to
> >> do a whole-field search and which can't do it will instead do a word
> >> search, because "it's better to give the user SOMETHING".  I bet the
> >> same is true of SRU servers.  (I am as guilty as anyone else, I've
> >> written servers like that.)
> >>
> >> The idea that "it's better to give the user SOMETHING" might -- might
> >> -- have been true when we mostly used Z39.50 servers for interactive
> >> sessions.  Now that they are mostly used as targets in metasearching,
> >> that approach is disastrous.
> >>
> >> _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
> >> /o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <[log in to unmask]>
> >> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
> >> )_v__/\  "I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days
> >> attack me at once" -- Ashleigh Brilliant.
> >>
> >
> >