Response to Ralph and Mike.

"LeVan,Ralph" wrote:

> What is a quoted-string-literal and why is it a candidate for an
> index-base-name?

I've changed  both prefix and index name to identifier .  (That was Alan's
proposal and he'll have to say why.)

quoted-literal-string remains though;

We had:
term ::= pattern | "(" adj-expr ")"

and  I've now added:
pattern ::= +( literal-text | "#" | "?" )
literal-text ::= identifier | quoted-string-literal

though I've left out (from Alan's proposal) the integer following the masking
characters, because that's not in the 105 proposal.


> Where did sameSentence and sameParagraph come from?  I'd say that it is
> broadly unsupported and will require that we add a section to our explain
> records listing the CQL features that we don't support.

They came from Alan.  I'll be happy to remove them if nobody objects.

Meawhile though:
"fuzzy"| "stem"|"relevance"
came from you. Are these broadly supported?

I'd be happy to remove these too.


> I'd prefer W/ and N/ (within and near) to % and !.  I've never seen those
> characters used for proximity.

Not sure I understand.  You mean W for "in order" and N for "any order"?


> Ralph

Mike Taylor wrote:

> First, the trivial one.  Can we change the "result-set" keyword to
> something without a hyphen in the middle?

Done.


> (And related to this, I notice that ":" is no longer a rel-op -- quite
> right, since it was synonymous with "=" anyway.  So I suggest that we
> redeploy ":" in the syntax for result-set-expression --
>
>         "resultSet" ":" identifier

Well ok I've made this change, but am tempted to change it back. Personally I
like the symmetry of "index = term" and "resultSet = identifier".



> And BTW, why must it be an identifier rather than an atomic-token?

Well now that I've changed prefix and index name to identifer (and gotten rid
of atomic token) I hope this is now moot?


> The second is scruglier.  I don't understand why we have all the
> and/or/not logic repreoduced in the definition of a term when we
> already have all that machinery higher up in the grammar.  Can you
> give an illustrative example of a query that uses both kinds of "and"?

creator = Mozart and title = Requiem and %3 Geschäfte or %4 Constanze

I'm just guessing though. Alan can give a more authoritative example.

--Ray

>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 2:21 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: revised bnf for cql
> >
> >
> > I've (re-)written  bnf for CQL based on recent
> > discussion.
> >
> > Not that the discussion has been all that useful
> > in trying to figure out what people really want
> > but it's time to focus on stabalizing this.  I've
> > put it up at
> > http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/cql.html
> >
> > This is based on Alan's proposal as well as
> > Ralph's earlier work, and the recent discussion.
> >
> > Officially, this is the current state of CQL, so
> > if there are specifics of this draft that you
> > don't like, I'll change it, if you send concrete
> > suggestions.  It's time to force the issue and
> > find out how close we are to some consensus.
> >
> > --Ray
> >