So you're back to needing a separate index on which to do first words in
field search. No! Go back to the simple case of one word per term with no
implied operators necessary.  It's not 'convenient', it's a pain in the
a(r|s)s(e)?.

Rob

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Ray Denenberg wrote:

> Given recent discussion let's reconsider the
> proposal we've put up for  word masking. Should we
> withdraw it? After all, it's purpose was to
> support cql searches, and if we're back to
> defining word indexes, we don't need it, as long
> as we have a way to map to Z39.50 attributes --
> which we do for attribute architecture but not for
> bib-1.
>
> So I suggest the following:
> 1. withdraw the word masking proposal.
> 2. propose three new structure attributes for
> bib-1:
>     left-truncation on word boundary
>     right-truncation on word boundary
>     adjacentWords
> 3. If these attributes aren't accepted then we
> just map to attribute-architecture-friendly
> combinations.
>
> --Ray
>

--
      ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      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