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. > >> > > > >