I think I am agreeing with you. My point is that there is no need to define
the type of truncation when you position the truncation symbol. As such, I
don't think that we are breaking alignment with Bath.
Janifer
-----Original Message-----
From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, 17 May 2002 15:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: cql index definitions
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janifer Gatenby [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 8:12 AM
>
> The location of the truncation symbol defines the sort of truncation.
> Examples:
>
> Tasmania? - right truncation
> Tasmania? tiger? - right truncation
> Tasmania? tiger - truncation 104
> Tasmanian tiger? - truncation 104
Sorry, but I don't get the point. You could have said truncation 104 for
each of those examples and gotten the same results. So why make a
distinction?
Ralph
|