Ray,
Ralph and I have been having this conversation (round about) on
the Bath-Profile list.  I don't understand the difference between
option 1 and option 3 in your list, however.  (They look the same to me.)

If we go with #1/3, are we *really* unable to define the Bath
searches?  In Bath we have as many as six "flavors" of search
for a particular index type.  For example:
   1) keyword
   2) keyword with right truncation
   3) exact match
   4) first words in field
   5) first characters in field
   6) unanchored phrase

Can't they be represented as (where "x" is a particular index like
"title"):
   1) bath.xWord     (no truncation character required in search term)
   2) bath.xWord     (include "?" at end or term --  the "*" is a bonus)
   3) bath.xExact    (or bath.xComplete as Joe favored)
   4) bath.xFirstCharacters   (I don't really like this name, but
                                 something making it clear that it's
                                 left-anchored.  I also realize that
                                 this only maps to the First *Words* in
                                 Field search if the search term contains
                                 complete words.)
   5) bath.xFirstCharacters  (include "?" after search term -- search
                                 term could end with a partial word)
   6) bath.xPhrase    (Ralph may not like "phrase")

Larry


On Thu, 16 May 2002, Ray Denenberg wrote:

> "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
>
> > Ray, I read Joe's message differently than you do.  I read it to mean that
> > he wants the language to define truncation, not the indexes.
>
> Yes, that's how I read it -- option 3 below. (Option 2 is included in the list
> for completeness -- if you'll pardon the pun).  --Ray
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 2:39 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: cql index definitions
> > >
> > >
> > > "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
> > >
> > > > I might be willing to give on Completeness and Position, but not on
> > > > truncation.  The users need a consistent set of truncation rules.
> > >
> > > Ok, it's time we addressed Joe Zeeman's suggestion (see separately
> > > forwarded message).  Joe is suggestion that truncation be explicit in
> > > the query syntax.  How do we feel about that?
> > >
> > > So there are three possibilities:
> > > 1. Implicit truncation, as in the original rule where type 104 always
> > > applies.
> > > 2. Truncation defined as part of the index, as in the bath searches.
> > > 3. Explicit truncation, expressed in the query string.
> > >
> > > Note that if we go with either 1 or 3, we will have to
> > > abandon the idea
> > > of defining Bath searches.
> > >
> > > --Ray