ANDNOT is fine by me.
Ralph
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Dovey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 9:17 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: CQL NOT Operator
>
>
> I'm in favour of calling this ANDNOT. I don't agree with
> Ralph that this
> is just as arbitrary as
>
> a) the name "ANDNOT" carries the implication that this is not a unary
> operator, whereas NOT carries no such implication
>
> b) the name NOT has clearly caused confusion already.
>
> Moreover, an aim of ZNG is to lower the barriers of access to the
> protocol. In every computer language I've encountered to date (C, C++,
> C#, Pascal, Oberon, Basic, Modula, Java, etc.) NOT is an
> unary operator.
> When I studied logic at university, I studied Boolean,
> classical logic,
> modal logic, temporal logic, intuitionistic logic etc. and
> again is all
> those NOT was a unary operator. It is only since dealing with
> Z39.50/CQL
> etc. that I've encountered the concept of NOT being binary
> (even then it
> is really short hand for something else namely AND-NOT). So I would
> argue that for many coming to ZNG from outside the Z39.50 community,
> calling this operand NOT would imply that it is unary.
>
> Matthew
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 24 September 2001 13:57
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: CQL NOT Operator
> >
> > Of the examples you give, only Exp1 AND (NOT Exp2) is legal for us.
> More
> > clearly, the query, "NOT English" will fail.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Poul Henrik Jørgensen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 8:53 AM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Cc: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: RE: CQL NOT Operator
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Ralp,
> > >
> > > You state, that your "NOT" is not (sic) a unary operator. But
> > > ist seems to
> > > me, that you ARE in fact using "NOT" to designate the unary
> > > operator, which
> > > negates a corresponding logical expression, e.g.:
> > >
> > > NOT Exp1 (NOT "Poul Henrik understands this") => "Poul
> > > Henrik is confused"
> > > Exp1 AND (NOT Exp2)
> > > Exp1 OR (NOT Exp2)
> > > NOT (Exp1 AND Exp2)
> > > NOT (Exp1 OR Exp2)
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Poul Henrik
> > > mailto:[log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: 24. september 2001 14:31
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: CQL NOT Operator
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't know of many systems that support the unary NOT. None of
> the
> > > systems that I have ever worked on support it.
> > >
> > > I mean for NOT to mean AND NOT, which is usually just
> > > shortened to NOT. If
> > > you really think this is going to cause confusion, then we
> > > can use the name
> > > ANDNOT, but that is just as arbitrary and just telling folks
> > > that NOT is a
> > > binary operator.
> > >
> > > Ralph
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Poul Henrik Jørgensen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 3:31 PM
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Cc: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject: CQL NOT Operator
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ralp,
> > > >
> > > > In CQL, do you intend "NOT" to represent the binary operator,
> > > > that is often
> > > > called "NOT EQUAL"?
> > > >
> > > > If that is the case; I propose to denote the operator
> > > > something else (eg.
> > > > "<>" or "NE", since "NOT" usually denote the 1-ary operator.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Poul Henrik
> > > > mailto:[log in to unmask]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > > Sent: 22. august 2001 14:50
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject: Re: CQL
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Rob Koopman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:52 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > you on purpose exclude:
> > > > > 1) NOT title:second W title:war (NOT as unary operator)
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2) author:ralph,levan OR womble,kelly (qualifier implicitly
> > > > repeated)
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 3) NEAR
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but I have no problem putting it in.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Can we get away with ? meaning zero or one as a large part of
> > > > > the world uses
> > > > > it now as zero or more. I am a bit worried about:
> isbn: 123?456
> > > >
> > > > I'm open to suggestions on how to handle wildcards. I think
> > > > we need to nail
> > > > down wildcard behavior and then allow the servers to declare
> > > > which wildcards
> > > > they support. I know that not all servers can support them
> > > > all and don't
> > > > want to mandate something that can't be done.
> > > >
> > > > I don't feel badly about keeping this language a little
> > > > strict. It was not
> > > > my intention that end-user searches could just be dumped into
> > > > a URL. I'm
> > > > still expecting some kind of expert (human or software) to
> > > > craft the query
> > > > from user input; I'm just trying to make it easier.
> > > >
> > > > Ralph
> > > >
> > >
>
|