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.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
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)
> 2) author:ralph,levan OR womble,kelly (qualifier implicitly repeated)
> 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.