> 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.
In the end, any user extensable part of a system can be used well or used
poorly. In my opinion the below is a very poor use of relation modifiers.
So /we/ are not recreating the notion of attribute combinations, but
someone might do it (poorly).
That said, I don't really think that it's either here or there when it
comes to the proposal. We can't expect communities to come to us to
extend CQL. If they do come to us, so much the better. If we understand
what they're talking about, better still. But if they can just get on and
use SRW/CQL without any political faffing around, then I expect the uptake
will be MUCH higher.
> > You could (I'm definitely not saying should!) do:
> > dc.title =/3.1/4.1/5.100/6.3 "fish"
,'/:. 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