> > 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?
Ahh, sorry, hadn't looked there when I sent that message:)
> > >......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.
Yep, sorry that wasn't clear. So: date cql.within "2001 2002"
Rather than ms.within library.within geo.within archives.within and any
number of other sets that really need a 'within' operator.
,'/:. 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