Ed-
We have long ago, you might say by common law, accepted that
'F' means
"full" in the same sense that 'B' means
"brief" even though the standard
uses somewhat different prose to describe these two. 'F'
means whatever a
target/profile defines it to mean. Though a general good
practice: if you
have a number of element sets, and one is the briefest, and
one is the
fullest, it would be considered bad manners to use 'B' for
the fullest and
'F' for the briefest.
--Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward C. Zimmermann" <edz bsn.com>
To: "Discussion on the YAZ Z39.50 toolkit"
<yazlistlists.indexdata.dk>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Yazlist] Retrieving Full output
> Quoting Mike Taylor <mikeindexdata.com>:
> > Edward C. Zimmermann writes:
> > > In Zebra this may be the case (I don't know)
but "F", "S" or "B"
> > > don't have to be record subsets. The
"Brief" record (as other
> > > "synthetic" elements) may indeed
contain extracorporeal material.
> >
> > A target must always recognize the character
string
> > "F" as an element set name to mean
"full"; when it is
> > applied to an abstract database record, it results
in
> > the same abstract database record (i.e. a null
> > transformation).
>
> The character string "F" needs to return a
record with the "semantics"
> full but what are the semantics for "full"?
It need not ever be the
> record as entered into the system. One must also accept
that from the
> point of view of a target an abstract database record
for a given origin
> may be something other than its own internal
"record", to whatever
> extent the underlying server even has records. In the
SRU list, I think,
> you have followed that I'm starting to view what
records are on the basis
> of queries. In my Shakespeare example the search query
defines the
semantic
> unit of record which can be LINE, SPEECH, ACT or.. and
not just play or
> something preset and poured in concrete but within a
model of Ancestors
> and their Descendants. This is getting beyond the scope
of this list but
> what is clear is that "Record" as a retrieval
unit is an abstraction.
>
> Since the records we're talking about are abstract and
we then apply
something
> to mean "Full" what do we have? What we don't
have is everyone meaning the
same
> thing!
>
> >
> > A target must always recognize the character
string
> > "B" as an element set name to mean
"brief" record.
> > This standard does not define the meaning of
"brief."
> > Unless the origin knows the target's definition
of
> > "brief" for a given schema, it should
not assume that
> > any particular elements are included.
>
> What constitutes a Brief ("B") or Summary
("S") "element" of a record
> is intentionally not specified. Its not even specified
as an "element"
> of the record but as a synthetic element name assigned
to a particular
> stream of characters chosen to be called the Brief or
Summary elements.
>
> >
> > -- ANSI/NISO Z39.50-1995, section 3.6
(Composition
> > Specification), subsection 3.6.2 (Comp-spec
Omitted).
> >
> > Seems pretty explicit to me that the element-set
names "F" and "B"
> > represent "full" and "brief",
whatever those two descriptions mean;
> > and also the "F" really is a full record
("the same abstract database
>
> No. You are reading into the standard. There are some
profiles that have
> defined the set of elements in the target and what full
needs to contain
> (all these) but that's NOT what the standard says in
general. It says
> "Full", whatever "full" may mean...
and in many implementations it indeed
> means different things.
>
> As you well know Z39.50 has since the first version
gone beyond the card
> catalog paradigm to be a much more abstract protocol
not just about OPACs.
>
> The background to Brief was, you call, to convey a
short bit of
information
> ("Brief") about what a record (as in
"F") would deliver. It got
abstracted.
>
> There are some devious uses.
>
> About a dozen years ago (my how time flies) in a
project for the EU
Council
> we had records authored in their own language (French
with French, German
> with German etc.) but had multiple translations for
Brief.
>
> > record"). I suppose the wording of the
standard leaves open the
> > possibility that "B" could contain
"extracorporeal material", but
> > since that would be material not in "F"
it would be rather perverse.
>
> You'd not be the first to call it so 
>
>
>
> > > The element "F" is really also
misleading since there is nothing
> > > about "F" to say that its really
the full-record (or even that
> > > there is a "full record") but its
what's been (nearly arbitrarily
> > > or set forth in a profile) decided to be the
"F" render of the
> > > record in the specified syntax.
> >
> > I don't see how to sqare that interpretation with
the words of the
> > standard.
>
> Lets not talk about the standard here (we have others
lists for that and
> can get others to join the fun) but let's talk about
real world targets.
> Not all targets (mine for instance) will give anyone
everything when then
> asked for "F". I'll even give different
things (even different takes
> on the semantics for "Full") with different
record syntaxes.
>
> --
> --
> Edward C. Zimmermann, Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich
> Office Leo (R&D):
> Leopoldstrasse 53-55, D-80802 Munich,
> Federal Republic of Germany
> http://www.nonmonotonic.n
et
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yazlist mailing list
> Yazlistlists.indexdata.dk
> http://lists.indexdata.dk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/yaz
list
_______________________________________________
Yazlist mailing list
Yazlistlists.indexdata.dk
http://lists.indexdata.dk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/yaz
list
|
