# Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification

John A. Kunze (jak@nlm.nih.gov)
Tue, 21 Mar 1995 11:22:19 +0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: mike gursky: "Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification"
- Previous message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: The Path URN Specification"
- Maybe in reply to: John A. Kunze: "new draft of Z39.50 URL specification"
- Next in thread: mike gursky: "Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification"
- Reply: mike gursky: "Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification"

    Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 11:22:19 +0500

    From: jak@nlm.nih.gov (John A. Kunze)

    Message-Id: <9503211622.AA23680@dot.csb>

    To: Z3950IW@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU, uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification

> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 10:51:43 -0500
> From: mike gursky <mgursky@CDPLUS.COM>
>
> As written, the syntax for z39.50s does not seem to allow for other
> parameters without the presence of docid:

That's correct. The docid is actually the query Term, without which
the other parameters don't (or barely) make sense.

> z39.50s://host[:port]
> [/database[+database...]
> ^ [?docid
> ^ [;esn=elementset]
> ^ [;rs=recordsyntax[+recordsyntax...]]]]
|____________________________________________________^

> Furthermore, the draft implies that other parameters may appear without the
> presence of database name(s).

Did you notice that the ']' matching the first '[' comes at the end
(as drawn)? This means that other parameters may only appear if a
database name (at least one of possibly several) is given.

> It seems that what is intended is something like:
>
> z39.50s://host[:port]
> [/
> [database[+database...][?docid]]
> [;esn=elementset]
> [;rs=recordsyntax[+recordsyntax...]]]

Hmm. I think this actually creates the problem you were trying to avoid.

> The language for z39.50r implies that the client will use the present
> capability of the search service. However, a client could just as well
> use a separate present request. I think the draft should be neutral
> regarding how the protocol is used to retrieve records.

I think you're right. The relevant passage, if I understand you, is

- If element set name (esn) is not specified, it is client's choice.
If esn is specified, it should be used within the Search request for
the value of small- and/or medium- set-element-set-names. These
terms and their use are defined within the Z39.50 Standard [2].

Does the following change make it clearer?

- If element set name (esn) is not specified, it is client's choice.
If esn is specified, it should be used either within the Search
request for the value of small- and/or medium- set-element-set-names
or within a Present request following a Search. These terms and their
use are defined within the Z39.50 Standard [2].

-John

- Next message: mike gursky: "Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification"
- Previous message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: The Path URN Specification"
- Maybe in reply to: John A. Kunze: "new draft of Z39.50 URL specification"
- Next in thread: mike gursky: "Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification"
- Reply: mike gursky: "Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification"