Hello all,

>> Then, is there any difference between
>> a. idx = term1, and
>> b. idx =/cql.string term1
>> where term1 only contains 1 word
> Yes, absolutely!  The former would find records where idx has the
value "term0 term1 term2", but the latter 
> wouldn't.
Ah, I overlooked that. Thanks for pointing it out.

> recall that the "word" structure is the default for the relation "="
>        "=" means "=/cql.word"
Hmm, this is (for me) not exactly the same as what the CQL context set
says:
 "= is used: 
   For word adjacency, when the term is a list of words. That is to say
that the words appear in that order with
    no others intervening. 
   Otherwise, for exact equality of value"
                  ^^^^^
from the term 'exact' I don't get the impression that cql.word is
implied for = on single terms..

>Hoo, that's a tricky one!
-- 8< ---
[lengthy URI & word separation discussion by Rob & Mike]
Well I guess I stirred up something that hasn't been totally agreed upon
yet.. I have to finalize my SRU code
so I don't have time to wait for the finalization of this thread. You've
already seen my Adlib Base Profile document: I just documented how I
implemented it, later on I'll see just how many CQL context set rules I
broke :-)

>> You mean SRW being Z39.50 all over - something like a bulky,
difficult to implement protocol?
>Well, I reject that description of Z39.50. 
Apologies if I offended you ;-)

> SRW and CQL try on the whole to give you just One True Way. 
Which is A Good Thing.

> At present, for specifying sort keys, that's XPath.
Which is also fine from the clients point of view.

> It's stupid that you can find records matching "author=lewis" without
needing to know where the "author" field
> is in the XML records, but you can't the sort that set on title
without knowing where the "title" field is.
Yes. My two cents: the XPath sorting approaches sorting from the
'output' (i.e. record schemas) side of things whereas I would approach
sorting from the 'input' (i.e. context set & index) side. If there would
be a *nice* way
to tell the SRU server that you want to sort either on input or output
side, and then have output sorting defined
on XPath and input sorting defined on CQL indexes, I'd be really
pleased. My server would then implement input sorting only: problem
solved. 

The only drawback is that this solution deviates from the One True Way..

[escaping XPaths]
> What you're trying to do here makes sense, but the _way_ your
suggesting here seems unnecessarily hacky.  I
> think we can do better.
You're completely right.

> If you want to sort by a numeric index alphabetically, rather than
numerically, then you need to know more than
> just the index, you need to have the index and
relation/relationModifier.
Okay, then input sorting needs those arguments as well.

> we have problems with namespace resolution in the XPath.  
I wasn't aware of that.

> I in fact think the sort definition needs completely overhauling
Well then that's the second thing I stirred up. Woo-hoo!

>> See the attachment for my updated XSLs.
>Thanks!
No problem. Rob has done all the hard work..

Best regards,

Hedzer Westra, Systems Developer

Adlib | Information Systems
Reactorweg 291
3542 AD Utrecht
Postbus 1436
3600 BK Maarssen
tel: +31-30-241 1885
www: http://www.adlibsoft.com