On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 11:52:29PM +0100, Matthew J. Dovey wrote:
> Seem fine to me (not least of all since I suggested we needed to allow
> relations to be extended in the same way that indexes were some time
> ago!)
>
> Matthew

Being out of things a bit, I did not realise it was not possible already.
I think making it extensible is *very* useful. GEO is a good example.
But I think any Z39.50 attribute set that comes along that defines a
new non-USE attribute will also benefit, including things like structure
attributes (as you point out for dates).

I understand the rationale for renaming "index sets", but "context sets"
does not leap out with clear semantics. Got a better name? (CQL Schema?
CQL Profile?)

So I agree with Section 4, but it would be nice to have a more meaningful
name than "context set". "CQL Profile" seems not bad - its even what
you titled your proposal page ;-)

Alan