LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


ZNG@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  September 2001

ZNG September 2001

Subject:

Re: CQL NOT Operator

From:

Matthew Dovey <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:16:33 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (159 lines)

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
> > >
> >

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager