> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:43:36 +0100
> From: Ben Soares <[log in to unmask]>
>
> I only caught the end of this thread which was beginning to talk
> about geo-search syntax in CQL so I polled the opinion of two of my
> Geo colleagues.  I thought their comments might be useful.

Thanks for doing this, Ben.

> From Philip Abrahamson <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>  Something that should be noted here is that there are a number of
>  different geographic search relationships (GEO attribute set defines:
>  Overlaps, Fully Enclosed Within, Encloses, Fully Outside Of, Near, in
>  addition to the normal range attributes <,>,etc), and the "within"
>  operator is not a required operator in the GEO /profile/, but the
>  "Overlaps" operator is, which is somewhat more useful.

Interesting.  In a recent message, Rob proposed that "overlaps" should
be expressed as a relation _modifier_, "partial", that goes with
"within".  But this list of others suggests that it should indeed be
its own separate relation.  Funny how the lines between things like
relations and relation modifiers always get blurry, isn't it?

> From Eddie Boyle <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>  From my perspective in working with the Z39.50 GEO profile for
>  GoGeo, the *profile* caters for this sort of range searching very
>  well, but the actual implementation of and support for this profile
>  in applications is patchy (even in Isite).

:-)  Yeah!  That's the world, isn't it?

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - they
         have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM." -- Klingon
         Programming Mantra

--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/