> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:22:24 -0400
> From: Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > Concerning my point 11, and Mike's currently unlisted proposal
> > (http://zing.z3950.org/cql/profiles.html),
>
> It's not exactly unlisted, as I've listed it as an agenda item. Do
> you want me to put it in the proposals list?

Doesn't matter to me, so long as it's on the agenda.

> >......I don't think that they're
> > mutually exclusive, .....
>
> I don't follow then. Mike's is an extensibility proposal, and you're
> proposing that 'within' and 'encloses' be part of the core set. So I
> see these as mutually exclusive.

I think Rob's point is that, assuming we adopt the extensibility
proposal, we'll then need to define a context set (or whatever we end
up calling it) that defines the semantics of standard relations -- and
"within" and its kin would be included in that set.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  Tom Holtz's rule of dinosaur restorations: if you can't fit
         the skeleton inside the model, the model is wrong.

--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/