Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
> How about if we register prefixes? I'll be quite happy to do it if that
> will help.
> No! The Explain service will say waht prefix is expected!
There are several different points of view in all this with different
things trying to be achieved. This is what I *think* different people feel.
* Some people want Explain to be the authoritive source of information
and a server defines whatever names for access points it supports.
* Some people want to express a single query and be able to send it
to multiple servers. Explain cannot be easly used to solve this problem.
I am in the latter camp, but don't mind the former if the latter
can also be achieved. And I think both can be satisfied.
My proposal I have tried to express is not to mandate names in CQL.
So there is no CQL official registered list of prefixes. Instead,
profiles can be developed independently to CQL which would typically
define a set of names (which all shared a prefix). Servers conforming
to this profile can then all accept queries conforming to the profile.
But each server (via explain) describes exactly what it supports.
If the above is acceptable, then (and only then) it *could* be decided
in CQL to add support for the above by reserving a character in CQL
to be used for prefixes (such as '.'). But there is no point arguing
about this point unless the first proposal (or some variation) is
So I am in favour of there being no requirement of a CQL implementation
to implement anything to do with prefixes. So there is no CQL based
registry as Ray offered.
However, I am also in favour of *allowing* companion profiles to be defined
which are shared by people who wish to use such profiles. In this case,
Ray's offer to host such profiles I think would be a good idea.
If CQL finally gets there, then CQL and whatever other profiles are
developed can be put on the LoC or similar site, but as separate
I cannot see why there should be any objection to this approach
(but am fully expecting someone to point out some deficency! :-).
People who don't want prefixes and profiles as a part of CQL are
satisfied (ie, use Explain to discover field names in database).
People who want profiles are satisified (ie, can send a query
without change to lots of servers - *if* those servers conform to
ps: I would almost prefer that attribute set definitions, such as
Bib-1, STAS, etc, define the preferred short names to be used for
those access points with the intent that they can be used in CCL
or CQL or whatever. But I can imagine LOTS of arguing about which
short acronym to use for what given all the Bib-1 variations on
title, author, and subject!!! So I think Bath-like profiles might
be a better place for such a thing.