-----Original Message-----
From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Mike Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 3:55 PM
> Yes, this is invalid.  In CQL 1.0 (which is what CQL-Java implements),
> it was invalid for the reason diagnosed here, namely that "bar" was an
> invalid relation.  In CQL 1.1, any word can function as a relation
> [which I think is a mistake, but that's a different discussion for
> another day], but the query "foo bar" is still illegal CQL 1.1,
> because it's interpreted as index-name "foo", relation "bar" and then
> no actual search-term.

Thanks for the info Mike...and Happy Holidays.

//Ed