APPENDIX D Sample of Analysis in Developing Historical ...

APPENDIX D
Sample of Analysis in Developing Historical Reconstruction
This appendix illustrates the developing of the historical reconstruction of Z39.50 development reported in Chapter
4. The first selection shows the preliminary chronology for 1980, the first full year of Subcommittee D’s standards
work. The dates in the entries link directly to the source document (in the FolioView system).
Illustration of Chronology Development in FolioViews
1980
January 7, 1980
DCH sends an announcement for the next meeting of SC D to be held at OCLC on January 29, 1980.
Tentative agenda includes: review of action items; discussion on using actual implementations and real experiences
to develop standard protocols.
January 15, 1980
DCH submits a "Subcommittee Status Report" that describes both current status and next steps. This is an
administrative tool for SCs to communicate with the coordinator of the committee (in this case it is Sally H.
McCallum). The topic of this report is the October 19, 1979 meeting. [See also the minutes and report from the
meeting.]
January 29, 1980
Second meeting of the SC D.
March 25, 1980
A "Subcommittee Status Report" submitted to SHM. Topic of the report is the January 29, 1980 meeting. [See also
the minutes and report from the meeting.]
April 15, 1980
DCH announces the next meeting of SC D for April 29, 1980 in Boston.
April 29, 1980
Third meeting of SC D.
June 26, 1980
Subcommittee Status Report the topic of which is the April 29, 1980 meeting. [See minutes and report of meeting
below.]
July 3, 1980
Letter from Wood to Warren Haas, CLR, July 3, 1980:
Requesting CLR to consider funding the work of a contractor who would work with Subcommittee D to draft "a set
of applications protocols (e.g., search and retrieval, record distribution, interlibrary loan), a set of guidelines for
creating other applications protocols, a description of how the applications protocols fit with other "lower level"
protocols as defined in the ISO ANSI Reference Model for Open Systems Interconnection, and, if within the scope
of the contract, a recommendation on how the protocols should be tested, refined, and implemented on systems."
[Note from April 25 visit to Archive -- this makes more sense regarding CLR support for specific initiatives that tie
into the BSDP]
Recognition by Wood of the need to move more quickly on this, and that there is a need for full-time attention on
this which the current subcommittee members can't provide.
D–1

Also, this is tied into CLR support of the RLG/WLN/LC project and the national authority file service effort.
"Development of protocols requires almost a full time commitment from an individual or individuals. Developers
must review the development of other protocols and current standards activities within the computer industry in
order to create "applications protocols" that fit within the newly emerging layers of protocols....The developers must
also be knowledgeable in library and information science applications in order to create meaningful and useful
protocols to exchange messages between systems."
Wood also suggests that both RLG and WLN will be invited to participate on SC D because of their participation on
the WLN/RLG/LC Linked Authority Systems Project.
Suggests a contract amount of $25,000 - $30,000 for six man-months over a calendar year.
July 15, 1980
Letter from Hartmann to Wood, July 15, 1980:
Suggests that Wayne Davison (RLG) and Tom Brown (WLN) be invited to participate on SC D beginning with the
July 29, 1980 meeting. Made it clear that these organizations will have to support their members participation at the
meetings.
July 15, 1980
Letter form Mary Agnes Thompson (CLR) to Wood, July 15, 1980:
Acknowledges Wood's letter to CLR and states that CLR is reviewing the proposal for funding the development of
an application level protocol.
July 28, 1980
Letter from Farmer to Hartmann, July 28, 1980:
Indicates that he will not be able to participate on SC D at least for the rest of 1980. Wants to be kept informed of
developments. His current workload prohibits him from doing any work on the ANSI Z39 network protocol.
July 28, 1980
Hartmann, Letter to Robert Payne, Director, WLN, inviting WLN to appoint a representative to SC D; recommends
that Tom Brown be the rep.
Hartmann, Letter to Edward Shaw, President, RLG, inviting RLG to appoint a representative to SC D; recommends
that Wayne Davison be the rep.
August 12, 1980
Fourth meeting of SC D.
August 18, 1980
Hartmann, Letter to Tina Kass, Director, Library Systems and Services, RLG, acknowledging the appointment of
Wayne Davison as rep to SC D
Hartmann, Letter to Wayne Davison, RLG, acknowledging his appointment has been cleared by RLG and inviting
him to serve on SC D
September 5, 1980
Memo from C. Lee Jones (Program officer, CLR) to Avram, Wood, Ray DeBuse (WLN), and Tina Kass (RLG)
regarding the development of Application Level Protocol, September 5, 1980:
Indicates CLR's willingness to provide funding; sees this as three groups each having a distinct but vital role:
WLN/RLG/LC LASP group will:
• Prepare a requirements statement for an Application Level Protocol to include an indication of the timing
required by LASP. This document will also serve as a work statement for the consultant who will do the work.
D–2

The work statement (requirements) will be completed as soon as possible, but in no case later than October 31,
1980.
• Identify an appropriate consultant for the task. The sooner this can be done the sooner CLR can begin
negotiations. I hope a West Coast consultant can be identified in order to minimize travel costs. To be
completed by October 14, 1980.
• Assign someone in the LASP group the day to day management responsibility for the consultant's work.
Identified by November 1, 1980.
ANSI, Subcommittee Z39 will:
• Review, comment and concur on requirements (work statement) generated by LASP group. This must be done
promptly in order not to inhibit LASP progress,
• Monitor and provide comments on the consultant's progress. it is highly likely that committee members would
be consulted during the work period.
• Finally, to receive, review and move to standard status the document prepared by the consultant.
CLR will:
• Concur with work statement and consultant choice.
• Negotiate with consultant to do the work, sharing management with the WLN/RLG/LC LASP group.
• Receive the consultant's report and forward it to Z39
• Provide funds for the consultant and his/her expenses.
"We have all agreed that Henriette Avram will forward to appropriate standards groups in Great Britain, Canada and
Australia various working documents and the final report of the consultant. This should help move the standards
process along in this these countries and help provide an environment in which all four can take the same standard to
ISO for adoption."
September 12, 1980
Payne, WLN, Letter to Wood, NISO, approving Tom Brown’s participation on SC d
September 17, 1980
Hartmann, Letter to Payne, WLN, acknowledging the appointment of Tom Brown as rep from WLN to SC D.
[Note: in all these letters, Hartmann writes: “Owing to Subcommittee D’s limited funding, should WLN (or others)
elect to join in this effort, and I hope you will, it will be necessary for WLN to support your representative’s travel
to the Subcommittee D meetings.”
September 26, 1980
Letter from Wood to C. Lee Jones (CLR) September 26, 1980:
Reports that the Z39 Executive Council at its Sept 24 meeting "accepted with appreciation the CLR proposal for
developing the application level protocol.
October 29, 1980
Letter from Wood to Avram, October 29, 1980:
In response to a request for Z39 to send an observer to the NLC Task Group on Computer/Communications
Protocols for Bibliographic Data Interchange.
"Frankly, I do not believe Z39 will have the funds during 1980 or 1981, but we might." [to send David Hartmann to
these meetings.
November 19, 1980
Fifth meeting of SC D.
December 9, 1980
Letter from Guy Sylvestre (National Librarian, NLC) to Wood, December 9, 1980:
D–3

Acknowledging Hartmann's appointment as an observer from Z39 to his [Sylvestre's] Task Group on
Computer/Communications Protocols for Bibliographic Data Interchange."
December 11, 1980
By the time of this memo which deals with expenses items for meetings, CLR and Z39 are engaged in some funding
arrangement so that CLR is expected to pick up some of the expenses for a West Coast meeting of SC D. This is
interesting since it is for an expense by Basinski to California on the date of the November 18, 1980 SC D meeting
that was actually held in DC.
This memo also includes some budget information.
December 15, 1980
Subcommittee Status Report on the SC D meeting of November 19, 1980. [See minutes and report below.]
Illustration of Detailed Summary from Primary Source Materials in FolioViews
1980
January 29, 1980 -- Meeting 2
Minutes from the SC D meeting.
Document: Notes on the Z39 Subcommittee D Meeting
Date of Meeting: January 29, 1980
Source: LC Maintenance Agency
Recorder/Author:[David Hartmann]
Summary: Yes
This is a set of notes made about the SC D Meeting, January 29, 1980. The meeting was held in Columbus, Ohio.
Attending the meeting: David Hartmann (LC, Chair), Jim Barrentine, Bill Basinski, Nick Farmer (CAS), Rick
Harrington.
Report by DH on ARINC. “Since most messages [exchanged by this system] are ‘unidirectional’ (require no
response) and fairly short in length the protocol is not particularly useful for library and information service type
application. It is interesting to note that this ‘standard’ arose from an industry’s need to exchange messages and
grew out of messages exchanged between humans.”
Report by DH on Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Standards: “This subcommittee must keep aware of
developments in this area and take this activity into account when developing a standard protocol.”
Report by DH on Activities at the National Bureau of Standards: “DH reported on a meeting he had had with staff
at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), Protocol Development Group. NBS has two major contracts for
development of higher level protocols. Bolt, Beranek and Newman is working on the Transport and Session level
protocols (Layers 4 and 5) and hope to have a standard in September 1981. System Development Corporation,
McLean, Virginia, is working on the Presentation and Application level protocols (Layers 6 and 7). The
Applications they are investigating include File Transfer protocols, Network Virtual Terminal protocols, and
common command languages. Since these contracts were let in November and December 1979, no documentation
exists yet, but as information become available, it will be sent to the subcommittee. Another activity at NBS
includes research in the area of a Network Virtual Data Manager to allow a user to access multiple, remote,
heterogeneous data base management systems.”
Report by BB on Circulation Systems Interface: “He felt that the companies which market circulation systems
(CLSI, Dataphase, GEAC, etc.) would very much like to have a standard protocol which would allow transfer of
records, searching of large data bases, interlibrary loan, etc., and that they would use such a standard protocol. BB
D–4

described some of the issues that might need resolving such as searching and sorting standards(handling of diacritics
and prepositions) and abbreviated records.”
Several scenarios were discussed in terms of the types of transactions that would occur between a circulation system
and a large utility offering cataloging services. Of particular interest was a scenario where cataloging is done using
a terminal connected to the circulation system. Messages pass through the circulation system and data is transferred
between the circulation system and the utility. The circulation system provides terminal support, converts data into
a computer-to-computer format for transfer to the utility and converts from computer-to-computer format transfer
from the utility. The utility provides searching of master data base, updating or inputting of records, validation and
authority checking.
“This scenario is much more complex than scenario 1. The interface must support interactive communications,
search and retrieval, file updating and transfers. However, this scenario is the type that most people envision. This
scenario can be broken down into three major divisions -- a) Searching, b) Updating/Inputting, and c) Record/File
Transfer.
a) Searching -- This is probably the most complex and difficult part. The format of search arguments, the many
types of responses, the errors which can occur, the synchronization of searchers and responses, all are part of the
complexity. The subcommittee discussed these issues at some length. Phil Long’s report looks at the search query
problem. It was felt that someone should look at response formats and try to determine if any commonalties exist
that could help development of a standard method or set of responses. This should include ‘guide record’ techniques
to assist the user in narrowing a search which results in a large number of ‘bits.’
b) Updating/Inputting -- Normally a record that is input or modified is validated by a system which produces ‘error
messages’ indicating inconsistencies or irregularities that will not permit the record to be accepted by the system.
The record is then edited to correct the errors and eventually accepted into the system. Some current utilities
perform varying levels of validation and, because the input is terminal oriented, often perform validation on a lineby-line
basis as input. It is expected that en entire record would be sent for validation and acceptance. How systems
would handle the update/input problems, has to be investigated.
c) File Transfer -- After selecting a group of records through search/response the method of transmitting these would
probably use a file/transfer protocol as described in Scenario 1. [This is handled by the application, probably using a
File Transfer Protocol. the format of the records will probably be the MARC communications format. At the file
transfer level some control information must be negotiated and agreed upon such as, maximum file, record, and
block size; checkpoint restart techniques; and time considerations. This is a fairly simple protocol and could be
easily specified. It is based on other protocols (session, file transfer)]
Action Items
1. DH will prepare a report on concepts and issues of computer-to-computer search and retrieval.
2. JB will prepare a report on computer-to-computer record update transactions.
3. NF will prepare a report on file transfer protocols as they apply to library and information service applications.
4. NF will also ask whoever goes to GUIDE/SHARE from CAS to look into what standard protocol work is going
on.
5. BB will prepare a report on circulation systems interface (write up his notes) and prepare a report on interlibrary
loan transactions.
These report should be written and distributed to SC members by April 11, 1980.
The next meeting was set for April 29, 1980 to be held at NELINET in Newton Upper Falls, Massachusetts.
D–5

Voice of Z39, Aril 1980; vol 2, no. 2 -- contains the following description of the work of SC D (Hartman
Chairperson):
The SC met again on January 29, 1980, and reported on investigations into other "application protocol standards"
used for inter airline communications and electronic data interchange in the transportation industry, and progress
reports on activities at the National Bureau of Standards on various levels of protocols including transport, session,
presentation and application. The SC discussed various types of transactions that would occur between two systems,
such as circulation systems and a large utility offering cataloging services. Several scenarios were developed and
commonalties noted. One major area that was felt important was a development of a file transfer protocol to
transmit blocks of bibliographic data from one system to another. This protocol could be used in conjunction with
current terminal oriented systems to transfer a day's or week's worth of data between systems. Other protocols
discussed were search/retrieval protocol and record update protocol. Next scheduled meeting is April 28, 1980.
Committee members are preparing reports on file transfer/protocol, search/retrieval methods in a computer-tocomputer
environment, record update procedures in inter-library loan."
April 29, 1980 -- Meeting 3
Minutes from the SC D meeting.
Document: Notes on the Z39 Subcommittee D Meeting
Date of Meeting: April 29, 1980
Source: LC Maintenance Agency
Recorder/Author:[David Hartmann]
Summary: Yes
This is a set of notes made about the SC D Meeting, April 29, 1980. The meeting was held in Boston,
Massachusetts. Attending the meeting: David Hartmann (LC, Chair), Jim Barrentine, Bill Basinski, Nick Farmer
(CAS), Rick Harrington.
Report by DH on his working paper, Search and Retrieval in a Computer-to-Computer Environment. Still not
addressed by the paper were:
a. Responses which are based on an index file, rather than the ‘bibliographic data’ files, where ‘MARC’ formats
might not be appropriate (e.g., a browse screen of the index which identifies how often a terms is used for different
purposes).
b. The sorting of records for a given search -- random order, sequential order based on ID number, order based on
certain fields with a record (author, title, etc.), order based upon ‘weighting’ factors (such as the AIDS/SITE system
being developed at NLM).
c. The embedding of Boolean operators within search strings.
d. The ability to perform right and left truncation on strings.
“The committee felt that rather than creating another format structure for search queries, we should look into using
the MARC format ( or pseudo MARC format) for transmitting searches. The Directory could be used to identify the
fields to be searched, the strings could be contained in the ‘data portion’ of the MARC record. Techniques for
specifying number of records desired, number of record in response, Boolean combination of fields, sorting of
records and which fields to include in a response, must be investigated. The committee also felt that whenever
specific items need to be identified (e.g., selecting an abbreviated item for full record transmission, identifying items
from a list) the unique ID number (e.g., LC Card Number) should always be used rather than creating an artificial
number (1,2,3...).”
Report by BB on his write-up on circulation system interface and interlibrary loan: “The SC discussed his paper and
suggested that a close look at a typical ‘interlibrary loan’ scenario for computer to computer communication be
investigated. BB will identify the types of interactions that would occur between systems (based upon OCLC’s
ILL), determine what data elements must be exchanged, and how a ‘MARC format’ could be used for these
purposes.”
D–6

Report by NF on his paper on File Transfer Protocols and an article, SNA and Emerging International Standards: “It
was felt that the traditional file transfer protocols were not applicable to library applications because the common
MARC format handles many of the functions typically performed by file transfer protocols. It was also felt that
record distribution is subset of search and retrieval -- simple search (send all new records) and a long response (all
the full records). Flow control for transmitting large blocks of data is usually handled by lower levels, but in
applications one can limit the number of items it wished to send at one time or that it requests to send. DH
mentioned the draft standard being prepared by X3 for an ‘Information Interchange Data Descriptive File’ and said
he’d forward a copy to everyone. This format could be used to transmit other non-MARC files using a MARC type
format.”
Report by JB on updating and editing in a computer-to-computer environment: “It was felt that a technique for
transmitting error messages about a record from the receiving system to the sending system should also be
developed around the MARC format and should be standardized across systems. A diagnostic record would
therefore have to be developed.”
Report by RH on a paper by Bell-Northern Research on A Session Layer Protocol and the activities being performed
by the ISO ‘Common Command Language’ group (ANSI being represented by Pauline Atherton): “It was felt that
the SC should remain aware of their work and keep them informed of the SC’s work.”
Action Items
1. DH will revise his paper on search and retrieval and investigate using a pseudo MARC format for searching.
2. BB will identify how a pseudo MARC format could be developed for ILL type messages. He will also identify
the types of transactions which occur in a typical computer-to-computer ILL situation.
3. NF will look at the Information Interchange Descriptive File document and see how it could be used for
nonbibliographic information.
4. JB will look at how error/status type messages about record can be transferred in a MARC type format. This
would be used to identify by a record doesn’t pass editing criteria or why updating is impossible.
The next meeting will be held July 29, 1980 at the Library of Congress, Network Development Office, Washington,
DC (beginning at 10:30 am to allow one day travel from Columbus and Boston).
August 12, 1980 -- Meeting 4
Minutes from the SC D meeting.
Document: Notes on the Z39 Subcommittee D Meeting
Date of Meeting: August 12, 1980
Source: LC Maintenance Agency
Recorder/Author:[David Hartmann]
Summary: Yes
This is a set of notes made about the SC D Meeting, August 12, 1980. The meeting was held in Washington, DC.
Attending the meeting: David Hartmann (LC, Chair), Bill Basinski, Wayne Davison (RLG).
DH reported that members of the SC had changed. Nick Farmer (CAS) resigned because of his workload at CAS.
Wayne Davison (RLG) and Tom Brown (Washington Library Network, WLN) had been invited to join “because of
their practical need for computer-to-computer protocols to support the Linked Authority Systems Project (LASP).
The SC felt that in light of NF’s resignation, another representative from an information industry should be found to
serve on the SC.”
DH announced that “Z39 has made a proposal to the Council on Library Resources (CLR) to support ‘full-time’
development of applications protocols. (See Attachment 1) [NOTE: Not attached to this document.] Discussion of
how this work would be pursued and potential contractors followed. However, since no definite word about the
D–7

proposal had been made, the subject was dropped. Since the meeting, CLR has agreed to support such an activity
(See Attachment 2)” [NOTE: Not attached to this document.]
Report by DH on his revised working paper, “Search and Retrieval in a Computer-to-Computer Environment” (See
Attachment 3) [NOTE: Not attached to this document.]. “Several specific suggestions and comments were:
a. Defining a technique for file selection specification in a query or as a specific ‘file select’ command.
b. For concatenated subfields within a field in a query, the order of subfields in the concatenation must be
considered.
c. Development of a technique for specifying ‘proximity’ of keywords in a field (i.e., within n words, in the same
subfield, in the same sentence).
d. The question of ‘precedence of Boolean operators’ must be answered.
e. Creation of a leading response record to contain control information rather than embedding data in each
bibliographic response record would be better. Then bibliographic records could be used ‘as is.’
The group also discussed negotiations that might have to occur between two applications -- such things as size of
messages, number of records per message, and supported queries.
Report by BB on his working paper, “Interlibrary Loan Transactions” (See Attachment 4) [NOTE: Not attached to
this document.] BB based his study on the Interlibrary Loan Subsystem at OCLC. (See Attachment 5) [NOTE: Not
attached to this document.] It was felt that a closer look at the information that must flow between systems to
support ILL must be looked at. BB has a good start on when information will flow during the ‘life’ of an ILL. It
was felt that by looking at the generic types of interactions a ‘standard’ set of messages and information could be
developed that would not need to know if systems were utilities or local circulation systems. It was recommended
that BB look at what data must be exchanged during an ILL and to specify a ‘MARC format’ to contain these data.
The SC discussed some of the techniques for linking related records using an extended directory which are note
being considered by MARBI and the international community. Members requested that a description of the
technique(s) be sent (See Attachment 6). [NOTE: Not attached to this document.]
Action Items
1. DH will revise his working paper on ‘Search and Retrieval.’
2. BB will specify what information must flow between systems to support ILL and investigate defining a MARC
format for this information.
3. WD will begin to define what information must flow between systems in the LASP project and therefore what
protocols are necessary.
The next meeting will be held November 19, 1980 at RLG, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. This will be held a
day after the next LASP meeting.
November 19, 1980 -- Meeting 5
Minutes from the SC D meeting.
Document: Notes on the Z39 Subcommittee D Meeting
Date of Meeting: November 19, 1980
Source: LC Maintenance Agency
Recorder/Author:[David Hartmann]
Summary: Yes
D–8

This is a set of notes made about the SC D Meeting, November 19, 1980. The meeting was held in Palo Alto,
California. Attending the meeting: David Hartmann (LC, Chair), Bill Basinski, Tom Brown (WLN), Wayne
Davison (RLG), Roy Manicke (WLN).
Report by DH on Protocol Activities at NBS/ISO/ANSI X3: NBS hopes to have protocol specifications for session
and transport layers available in early 1981. NBS documents will be forwarded to members of the SC as they are
received. New documents includes:
Features and Service Specification of an Internetwork Protocol
Features and Service Specifications of the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) and the Data Presentation Protocol (DPP)
Features of Network Interprocess Communications Protocols.
ANSI X3 (Computers and Information Processing) has a Technical Committee X3T5 (Systems Engineering -- Open
Systems Interconnection) chaired by Richard des Jardins, NASA. This committee is divided into three task groups
X3T51 (Architecture) chaired by John Day, DTI; X3T55 (Application and Presentation Layers) chaired by Lloyd
Hollis, IBM; and X3T56 (Session and Transport Layers) chaired by Joseph McGovern, Sperry UNIVAC. Other
layers are covered within X3S3 (Data Communications). Current work within ANSI X3T5 is preparation for the
ISO TC 97 SC 16 meeting in Berlin where the OSI Reference Model will be voted on as a standard. Other areas of
interest are the ECMA proposal for a Transport Protocol.
After NBS has published its protocol specifications it may be appropriate to seek funding from NBS to ‘implement
and test’ these protocols. DH will talk with John Heafner of NBS about this.
Discussion by SC on DH’s working paper on “Search and Retrieval in a Computer-to-Computer Environment:”
Techniques for specifying Boolean operations including using reverse Polish notation (RPN) were discussed. It was
felt that simple commands should be specified and handled most easily perhaps by specifying different ‘levels’ for
search complexity.
Other issues discussed were application level negotiation, error messages, previous search retention. For the latter,
“Since this is system dependent it was felt that various approaches might be needed. Sorting of retrieved records
was also discussed. It was felt it should be possible to specify the sorting desired or performed, but it may be very
difficult to implement on all systems.”
“It was felt that in developing a protocol we must begin with basics but select approaches that can be expanded for
future enhancements. Several of the functions that will be first implemented or needed for the LASP project is
block transfer for record distribution and searching of authorities files.”
“Another feature of search and retrieval that must be addressed is the issue of file or database selection or setting the
‘scope’ of searching. Since much of this is system dependent, what is appropriate in specifying scope must be
studied. In some systems, authorities and bibliographic records are stored in different files and a specific ‘file
select’ command must be issued. In others, the searching commands specify the desired file. Other areas of scope
might include searching by institution (book belongs to), by date (SDI) and by language (English only).”
“With respect to using the MARC format for queries, the need and use of the leader was questioned. The use of the
MARC format for browsing an index file was also discussed.”
“It was felt that before worrying about the bits and bytes of the MARC format for query/response, the SC should
back up and prepare a ‘features analysis/service specification’ document following the examples in the NBS
documents. DH will prepare documents for search and retrieval; WD will look at record distribution; BB will
continue to look at interlibrary loan.”
DH reported that “CLR has indicated its willingness to provide funds to support development of applications level
protocols needed in the LASP project. A draft statement of work for protocol development was discussed, and it
was decided that each institution will pass it around to solicit comments, both substantive and contractual.
Hopefully a completed statement of work will be ready by the first week in December. The committee also
discussed potential contractors who know both protocols and library applications.”
D–9

BB “distributed handwritten sheets and described what information is exchanged during the interlibrary loan cycle.
He also specified typical types of interactions that would occur between systems. BB will now prepare ‘feature
analysis/services specifications’ for interlibrary loan applications.”
“The SC discussed getting a broader, more diverse representation on the SC. BB will contact some circulation
systems vendors to see if one of them might be interested in participating.”
“The SC discussed what types of control messages must flow between applications. The difference between
interfaces and protocols must be kept clear when discussing management functions. For example, initiating an
application-to-application exchange will require a request to send data to another system between layers (to establish
a session, establish a connection, etc.) but probably no messages will flow between applications until the first data
message is sent. Management functions would include file selection and perhaps ‘application’ section. This issue of
management/control must be investigated further.”
The next meeting will be held February 3, 1981 at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC. This will be held
during ALA midwinter.
D–10