From: "Jonathan Rochkind"
HTML works out pretty well. If our biggest failures were 'failures' like
HTML, we'd be doing pretty well.
HTML is a wonderful standard.
And I don't mean to take the discussion off-course. My point was simply
that because early browsers did not insist on clean html
Jonathan Rochkind writes:
> >> I'm not sure it's a _big_ mess, though, at least for metasearching.
> >
> > I wasn't thinking specifically about metasearch, but rather, bad
> > decisions getting replicated and you end up with an installed
> > base of bad implementations. The best illustration w
HTML works out pretty well. If our biggest failures were 'failures' like
HTML, we'd be doing pretty well.
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
From: "Walker, David"
I'm not sure it's a _big_ mess, though, at least for metasearching.
I wasn't thinking specifically about metasea
From: "Walker, David"
I'm not sure it's a _big_ mess, though, at least for metasearching.
I wasn't thinking specifically about metasearch, but rather, bad decisions
getting replicated and you end up with an installed base of bad
implementations. The best illustration would be the huge mess
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.
Wal
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
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
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
> >
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
>
> Wow, isn't the Internet cool, and /me wonders, "Did the Bath Profile come
> from... Bath? [2]"
>
Yes.
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/bath/tp-bath2.1-e.htm#c
From: "Mike Taylor"
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
Er
On Apr 27, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
What are the ways to accomplish exact title searches with z39.50?
Thank you for all the prompt and helpful replies. The most precise and
complete "magic incantation" came from Larry Dixon of the Library of
Congress:
Exact match in Z
Bill Dueber writes:
> > What are the ways to accomplish exact title searches with z39.50?
> >
> > I'm looping through a list of MARC records trying to determine
> > whether or not we own multiple copies of an item. After reading
> > MARC field 245, subfield a I am creating the following z39.50
12 matches
Mail list logo
