Hi Ray,
If we are inventing a new query syntax intended to be accessible to the rest
of the World (i.e. outside the Z39.50 Community), we should assume that they
are familiar with standard Boolean logic - not the Z39.50 Type-1 Query
syntax.
Is there any difference between the results of the following three queries?
1) Bib1.Author="Ralph" ANDNOT Bib1.Title="The Dreamer"
2) Bib1.Author="Ralph" AND NOT Bib1.Title="The Dreamer"
3) NOT Bib1.Title="The Dreamer" AND Bib1.Author="Ralph"
Best regards,
Poul Henrik
mailto:[log in to unmask]
Best regards,
Poul Henrik
mailto:[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 24. september 2001 16:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CQL NOT Operator
Poul Henrik Jørgensen wrote:
> If alternatively we wish to introduce a new boolean operator composed of
the
> well binary operator AND in some combination with the unary operator NOT,
> then we should call it something else e.g. either AND-NOT or NOT-AND.
We're not introducing a new boolean operator. It's the same "and-not" that
we
have in the type-1 query. (If you want to view it as some combination of
unary
NOT and binary AND, fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the
same
binary and-not we've always had in Z39.50.)
--Ray
--
Ray Denenberg
Library of Congress
[log in to unmask]
202-707-5795
|