> Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 09:55:47 -0400
> From: Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
>
> I suggest that there be a convention for distinguishing well-known
> from private prefixes, to avoid conflict (but nothing quite so
> elaborate as what we use for Z39.50 oids).

If we really want to go that route, then precendent (RFC 822's
headers, the Zthes profile's Relation Types, etc.) suggest that
something like an "X-" prefix might be used for extensions.

Does the CQL grammar admit "-" in a qualifier name? The specification
document at
        http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/cql.html
seems not to say anything one way or t'other on the subject.

On another note, if we are serious about the "Philosophy" expressed at
the top of the CQL document -- that "all CQL queries must have an
unambiguous mapping to classic Z39.50 Type-1 queries" -- I think that
means we _must_ either have formal registration of prefixes, or
require the use of an Explain-alike to interpret prefixes.

 _/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ Ich spreche nicht Deutsch, ausgenommen diesen Satz.