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.

Janifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Taylor [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 19 December 2003 12:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: CQL-like Masking Attribute in BIB-1


Hi People,

The way I remember it, we planned to add a truncation attribute (105?)
to the BIB-1 set to express CQL-like masking ("?" for any one
character, "*" for any number, like Unix shell wildcards).  The idea
is that it would make it possible in the general case to translate CQL
queries into BIB-1-based Type-1 queries.

Looking at
        http://lcweb.loc.gov/z3950/agency/defns/bib1.html#truncation
it seems that this never actually happened.

Do we want to do this?  As I come to implement the translation of CQL
masking into BIB-1 terms, with semi-special cases for left- right- and
both-truncation, I realise that I could use @attr 5=104, Z39.58-style
masking, by a transliteration of the pattern.  So you could argue
there's no strong implementation case for truncation-type 105.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "We don't watch _Batman_ as a documentary on the LAPD" --
         Luis Chiappe's comment on the inaccuracies in the _Jurassic
         Park_ films.

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