Jakob Voss wrote:
> Rob Sanderson wrote:
>>> CQL is a standard of it's own, isn't it? You better keep this part
>>> in an independent document and refer to it. By the way is there a
>>> full mapping between CCL and CQL or what exactely is their
>> There isn't a mapping between CCL and CQL, but if you'd like to write
>> one up, then I'm sure that it would be appreciated by many :)
> I still wonder how people can call something a standard that is not
> publically available.
Many, many people have asked themselves the same question..
> CCL is very poorly documented - you can use it in many OPACs in some
> way but libraries seem to hide it from the user. If you send me a PDF
> of ISO 8777 I can try to summarize the differences and commonalities
> with CQL.
Unfortuantely, ISO8777 doesn't even describe the language that lucidly
-- the stnadard predates context-free grammars (at least I hope it does
-- otherwise, I don't know what their excuse would be). Adam put quite a
bit of effort into capturing the essence of the language in a BNF
notation.. that might actually be the easiest place to start. You'll
find it at http://www.indexdata.dk/yaz/doc/tools.tkl#CCL
All the best,
Sebastian Hammer, Index Data (US)
[log in to unmask] www.indexdata.com
Ph: (603) 209-6853