>> 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.

Apart from the updates needed for ZeeRex, rec 1.1, and so forth as
discussed last week.


>> 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

I can't think of one I'd ever want to use off the top of my head, but that
doesn't mean that no one will ever want to have a relation in a new
context set.

The ones that we have now are sufficient for generic sorts of information
retrieval, but there may be specialised fields that none of us know
anything about that require new relations.

Okay, how about:

'only'

image.depicts image.only "feline"

Matching images would depict only a feline and nothing else. So an image
of a cat would match, but the same cat with a person would not match.

(Perhaps this is of broader utility than just image searching, but it's
an easy example)

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