> If we keep word lists, then we need some mechanism to indicate what kind of
> word list they contain. I much prefer the more extensible proposal of
> following the index name with a colon separated list of modifiers. I am
> dead set against a bunch of special characters with limited extensibility
> and even more limited understandability.
indexset.index:token = "term"
any less extensable than:
indexset.index token "term"
You still have to define a set of tokens. I would much prefer a space
separation rule between index, relation and term in CQL (obviously in XCQL
it's unnecessary) and then allowing people to extend the tokens used for
If you want to have a relevance search, what is better about:
dc.description:relevance = "dublin core"
dc.description relevance "dublin core"
(or our shorthand for it of =~)
If > is still a relation like =, then what is the meaning of:
dc.description:relevance > "dublin core"
We would need a whole host more diagnostics along the line of 'Invalid
relation and index modifier combination' ... Urgh.
The one useful aspect that I could think of is if you wanted to qualify a
different operator than '=' ... for example >=, but can anyone give a
concrete example of when this would actually be useful?
Or would = and > become modifiers? If they're not modifiers, then what is
the difference between them such that some are modifiers and some are
,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I