The main reason for us defining word masking is to support Bath first words
in searches. If we say that the word masking character is only valid for
right truncation, this will make things a lot simpler. We could then have a
diagnostic saying "|(word mask character) is in illegal position". We also
need "| not supported" Word searching with proximity will accomplish most
of the requirements in a much simpler way.
Consultant OCLC PICA ITC
Schipholweg 99, 2300 AW Leiden, The Netherlands
+ 31 71 524 65 00
+ 31 71 522 31 19 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2002 14:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: which masking character for words?
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Alan Kent wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 11:09:17AM -0400, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> If I understand things, to find an exact title I would use:
> Title="How to make money"
> To do first-words-in-field I would say
> Title="How to make money|"
> To do words-anywhere-in-field I would say
> Title="|How to make money|"
> But I would assume the following probably would not be supported by
> most people (I cannot turn it into an attribute list).
> Title="|How to make money"
> That is 'last words in field'. So it may be legal in CQL, but an
> implementation may choose to say 'sorry, I cannot do that!'.
Yes. Perhaps some implementations will, and perhaps they won't. It's
just an unsupported search (though hopefully there's a diagnostic to say
why in particular it's not working)
> Also, in the spec you posted, it said '|' was one or more words. Should
> this be zero or more words? Otherwise the following means words in title
> If its zero or more words, it makes more sense doesn't it? Or is the goal
Yes. It should be zero or more, I think.
,'/:. 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