I agree. I think if one describes (in words) what the searches are
attempting to "communicate" (and ignore the different Bath Truncation
attribute values), you can represent all of the Bath searches with our SRW
CQL strings. We just have to agree on a brief description of each of
those four (instead of six) index types -- the "?" will take care of the
two searches that are right truncated in the Bath specification, so
we don't need brief descriptions for them.
Larry
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Janifer Gatenby wrote:
> 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
>
|