> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:59:13 -0500
> From: Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > We need two more new BIB-1 relations to represent the "any" and
> > "all" CQL relations.
>
> We have these in the Utility set.
Yes.
> They're not "relation" attributes, they're format/structure, but
> that shouldn't matter, if the issue is how to represent cql as a
> Z39.50 type-1 query. (Perhaps they shouldn't have been cast as
> format/structure, but that's off topic.)
I agree that their attribute-type is a different discussion, and not
one that I want to get into right now. (But I will just say that I
think the differences between different attribute types is somewhat
arbitrary, and so there is no single Right Answer.)
> Is the objective to represent cql as a Z39.50 type-1 query *using
> bib-1*?
Kinda.
> I thought we had some level of agreement that although it is
> essential to be able to express a cql query in terms of Z39.50
> type-1, it didn't have to be expressible in bib-1.
I don't remember what we agreed, sorry. Certainly to be able to
represent CQL as _some_ kind of Type-1 query is very desirable, one
might even say indispensible. But now that we come to the point of
actually implementing gateways, pragmatic issues start to come to the
fore. And since 90% of databases are BIB-1, I think we realistically
need to be able to map to BIB-1.
_/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "... currently trading under the name Gently for reasons
which it would be otiose, for the moment, to rehearse" --
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently"
|