On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> From: "Dr Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]>

>> Is there a reason why, for example, tel.creator isn't just dc.creator,

> If tel.creator is intended to have different semantics than dc.creator, that
> is sufficient reason.

Certainly.

> It's not easy to tell from the explain info the semantics of tel.creator (or
> for that matter any of the indexes).

Very true, but that's not the purpose of explain.  Explain explains what
the server supports, not the semantics of what it supports.

For example, you wouldn't want every server in existence having to say
that cql.serverChoice means what it does.

> What is the convention for expressing semantics of an index?

ISO11179 based descriptions in the context set documentation.

> In the <title> element?  Would it be reasonable to ask that a
> <description> be added for indexes?

This was discussed for SRW/CQL 1.0, but the thought then was that
descriptions are best suited for the context set (then index set)
documentation, however title was useful as something to present to the
user.

Rob

       ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
   ,'--/::(@)::.      Dept. of Computer Science, Room 805
,'---/::::::::::.    University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::.  L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
I L L U M I N A T I