> > > I'm suggesting this so that we completely disabuse ourself of the
> > > illusion that we're recreating the notion of attribute vectors.
> > Eh? Why would that be an illusion?
> Well for starters you can't create a new class of attributes in a
> context/index set/profile. For instance, the concept of modifiers (as
> opposed to the list of applicable modifiers) has to be introduced in the
> CQL itself rather than in a profile/set
You could (I'm definitely not saying should!) do:
dc.title =/3.1/4.1/5.100/6.3 "fish"
By defining 3,4,5 and 6 as context sets which mirror the bib1 attributes.
But you wouldn't want to unless you were completely obsessed with BIB1.
Normal people would say: dc.title exact "fish"
So no, you couldn't create a new top level beasty, but you could abuse the
relation modifiers quite a lot into looking like such a beasty.
But if people MUST do this, then who am I to say that they absolutely
can't? It won't be interoperable, but we won't have to support it. At
least this way I can reject the query if someone sends it to me saying
that the server doesn't support the context set, rather than saying that
the query is just totally invalid.
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: telnet: nebmedes.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I