On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> > If we don't have some sort of definition then we should put
> > CQL back as dependant on SRW, not a query language in its
> > own right. Without the rest of the protocol to retrieve the
> > Explain record, it's meaningless to say
> > bath.manufacterer="Goldstein".
> I think this is an excellent point. I'd be happy to see us fix this for
> XCQL and leave CQL as an SRW/U simplification.
Personal preference goes to keeping XCQL and CQL as closely linked as
possible such that query gateways can be constructed (for example).
Another reason is so that they can both be turned into the same object
structure. As XCQL will be parsed by the SOAP level, this gets tricky if
there's tweaks that need to be made in one or the other.
Rob
--
,'/:. 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
|