LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  December 2004

ZNG December 2004

Subject:

Re: CQL implementation details

From:

Hedzer Westra <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:45:40 +0100

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (91 lines) , sru-xslts.zip (91 lines)

Hello all,

[implied modifier behaviour]
>> Note that Rob's interpretation and mine are identical _except_ that 
>> Rob believes there is an arbitrary prohibition on the use of 
>> wildcarding when the relation is "exact".
>I have since come around from this delusion. Mike's answer is correct
:)
Okay then.. Some confusion on my part is still there:

> =/cql.word   is adjacency
> =/cql.string is exact
> operator exact (without modifiers) and =/cql.string are synonyms.
> A cql.string is an opaque set of characters that the server should not
try to interpret.
Then, is there any difference between

a. idx = term1, and
b. idx =/cql.string term1
where term1 only contains 1 word

and

a. idx = term2, and
b. idx =/cql.word term2
where term2 contains multiple words.

If I understand everything correctly now, there should be no distinction
whatsoever - am I right?

To rephrase the above:
>A cql.string is an opaque set of characters that the server should not
try to interpret.
-> does this *only* refer to word separation, and nothing else?

The context set currently defines five 'data types' (word, string,
number, isoDate, uri). Should
all terms be assigned exactly one of those? Is there a distinction
between terms that are *not* assigned any type (either in the search
query or by the server), and terms that are typed 'string' (except for
multi-word '=' searches without any modifiers?)

[sorting]
>>> Too bad there isn't a separate spec for sorting on context set
indexes.
>> That way, Z39.50 lies :-)
You mean SRW being Z39.50 all over - something like a bulky, difficult
to implement protocol?

> To expand upon Mike's typical one-liner, the problem is that then you
have to include the entire search clause 
What do you mean by that? I hardly know anything 'bout Z39.50, maybe
that doesn't help here..

> (or attribute combination for Z) and the only thing that you can
search by are indexes, rather than relatively arbitrary data.
> I'm not (personally) averse to reworking the sort definition for 1.2,
so if you have any concrete ideas, put them forwards :)
The only thing that comes to my mind right now is starting the sortXPath
with an escaping character (preferably an XPath-illegal char, making the
distinction clear) and then follow with an index name.

[adding cql.unmasked to the CQL context set]
> Since adding this is backwards compatible, I see no reason not to do
so.
>> Let's have the SRW 1.2 people decide upon this!
>We _are_ the SRW 1.2 people!
I knew that, just testing you ;-)

[SRU testing XSLs]
>> I retrieved the msg from the archive and got CQLJava which contained
a set of XSLs which turn IE into a SRU browser.
> CQL-Java contains that?  Really? I would actually like to find these
XSLTs.  Where did you get them?
I retrieved a ZIP from the OCLC website (don't know the location
anymore) with a lot of JAR and Java files, and some XSLs in the basedir.
See the attachment for my updated XSLs.

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager