Let's forget my point. We will support srw.resultSet and cql.resulSet.
Theo
>>> [log in to unmask] 27-11-02 12:28 >>>
> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:14:34 +0100
> From: Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>
>
> What is the use of a prefix when it doesn't matter which prefix is
> being used?
Come on, we've been through all this enough times, haven't we? :-)
The significance of a prefix in CQL is exactly the same that of a
namespace-prefix in an XML document: it's simply a convenient
shorthand for a definitive-but-horrible-looking URI that uniquely
identifies the qualifier-set. So:
> whatALoadOfCheese = "http://www.loc.gov/zing/cql/srw-indexes/v1.0/"
whatALoadOfCheese.serverChoice = fish
searches for "fish" in the index of the server's choice.
> Why not consider resultSet as a reserved word within CQL?
We could have gone that way, but decided not to. (If we later decide
to go with the proposal that all _new_ keywords begin with an
out-of-band character such as "@", then I would not oppose introducing
an "@resultSet" keyword; but that's a different discussion for another
day.)
> I would suggest to use only prefixes when they are needed to make
> distinction.
I'm not sure I understand what point you're making here, but does the
following answer your question? In a CQL environment in which the set
identified as
http://www.loc.gov/zing/cql/srw-indexes/v1.0/
is the default, the query ``resultSet=foo'' refers to a result-set
called "foo". However the query ``title=bar'' is meaningless, since
by definition the SRW qualifier-set does not include a "title"
qualifier -- only "serverChoice" and "resultSet". So you probably
don't want to set up your CQL environment like that.
_/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "'Scuse me while I kiss the sky" -- Jimi Hendrix, "Purple
Haze"
|