> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:47:05 +0000
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
> > I don't think it is necessary, in fact I would argue that it would
> > be a bad thing to do. It is preferable to map CQL to existing
> > BIB-1 attributes, thus achieving interoperability with Z39.50
> > servers without requiring work from them.
> I don't think that we would implement the CQL context set masking
> rules in BIB1, even if it's accepted, unless there's a demand for
> it. And I just don't see that demand happening. As Jannifer says,
> to achieve the best results we will have to map to existing bib1
> attributes anyway.
OK, I am convinced. (Plus I implemented CQL-style to Z39.59-style
masking-pattern transliteration this morning, so I don't want to waste
that code :-) Let's pretend @attr 5=105 never happened.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Measures of [cladistic] tree support just say how strongly
supported the tree is. They say nothing about its probability
of being correct" -- Matt Wedel.
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at