Whither z39.50?

[rhterry at RBSE.Mountain.Net]

Hi all,

I really appeciate these objective questions (Standards, 
Connventions(practices)), in the midst of the current subjective question 
of censorship.  I think the best protocol to follow is COBRA compliant.  
Whether z39.50 which had archane (non-high-level-abstraction) in my 
experience became CORBA/ODBC/... compliant is something unknown.

I am part of a software working group which produced an IEEE standard, 
and do regularly vote on standards up for review.  For those unfamiliar 
with working groups, they strive their best to be impartial.  With, a 
fair and sensible leadership they do produce good work, pro bono.   

Now, for my step up onto the podium.  Heh, I'm a fighting Math kid from 
Brooklyn.  If I don't get censored by the moderator for my Friday night 
ramblings, this may be posted, as all messages should be or rejected.

Bob Terry

"Learn how to topically classify your resoures, use Literary Warrant" 
Bob Terry's statement from what he learned from Prieto Diaz in his thesis 
on a new CS discipline called Domain Anlysis currently be mandated to be 
used/researched by DoD, NASA, Big-Business, etc..

On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Nick Arnett wrote:

> I'm taking one of my periodic looks at z39.50, with an eye toward whether or
> not Verity should add support for it to our products.  Does anyone know of a
> source for estimating the installed base?  Opinions about its future,
> anecdotal evidence, rants and raves are welcome, especially the degree to
> which it is making progress outside of the library community.
> 
> For those who are unfamiliar with it, z39.50 is a transport protocol that
> was initially (I believe) promoted by WAIS.  It has been adopted mostly in
> the library market.
> 
> Nick
> 
> Product Manager, Advanced Technology
> Verity Inc. -- Connecting People with Information
> 
> Phone: 408-542-2164     Fax: 408-541-1600
> Home office: 408-733-7613         narnett at verity.com
> http://www.verity.com
> 
>