> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:21:10 -0500
> From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> I need an example of a cql relation not in the cql context set
> (*relation*, not *relation modifier*). Fictitious is fine, since I
> think I have all the context sets in existence registered, and I
> (tentatively) conclude that there aren't any real examples.
I agree.
> If someone has an example of one that they plan to introduce I'd
> like to know about it (this is for a presentation I'm working up).
I don't even know of a fictitious one -- I checked a presentation I
made a while ago that went into CQL esoterica in some depth, and even
that didn't include one.
The only examples I remember ever having seen were in "obfuscated CQL
query" examples designed to show what weird stuff can be a query, e.g.
foo.foo foo foo
I am of the opinion that we erred when we decided to allow any word to
function as a relation. It is a facility that has no application and
that makes the grammar unstable, in the sense that a wrongly
constructed query is likely to be accepted (but mean something weird)
rather than being rejected as it ought. If I had my way, CQL 1.2
would go back to having a small enumerated set of allowable relations,
namely the algebraics plus "scr", "exact", "all", "any", "within" and
"encloses".
_/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Obstfledermause! Nehmen Sie sie, so lang sie noch heiss
sind! Sie sind lieblich" -- Andreas Pagel.
--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/
|