The point wasn't that you can't (or should be prevented) from doing such
workarounds; however, the fact that it is a workaround/abuse illustrates
that we aren't really recreating the notion of attribute vectors.
If we want to allow proper attribute vectors we should do so explicitly
not via a workaround.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 6:18 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: CQL Profiling Proposal
> > > > 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
> 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])
> ,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
> ,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
> ,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: telnet: nebmedes.o-r-g.org 7777
> ____/:::::::::::::. WWW:
> I L L U M I N A T I