> -----Original Message-----
> From: LeVan,Ralph
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 1:35 PM
> > And if we say that indexes are defined in terms of
> > attributes, then which
> > attributes? Use and structure? (We've decided that for
> > example truncation would
> > be represented within the cql syntax) and if those two, does
> > that lock us into
> > bib-1?
> We get to pick. I'd suggest that it be the new attribute
> architecture. Again, the conversations that led up to the
> new architecture were extremely valuable in understanding the
> concept of an index.
I've been reconsidering that last opinion and decided that I see no problem
with defining an index in terms of both attribute architectures. Part of
the purpose of the mapping is to enable z39.50 gateways and it would be nice
to be able to use the attribute architecture appropriate for the server.
(Put another way, I'm building a gateway to my server and it would croak
with a list of attributes from the new architecture.)