> > sentence and word have some meaning within a MARC context set, but
> > paragraph doesn't really.
> Sure it does.
> 500$a This is a paragraph note with two and three sentences.
> This is the second sentence of the first paragraph\n\nThis is
> the second paragraph and third sentence.
Apart from the fact that in MARC \n means afaik err \n not newline. In
fact, afaik there isn't a standard encoding for newline in a MARC field.
> > Mainly you don't normally associate sentences with MARC records
> > (especially if searching in indicators!)
> Sure. I wouldn't normally do it either, but someone asked
> what it meant :)
Yes - and others will - not valid within MARC is a perfectly acceptable
> > marc.500:1 any 1 prox/unit=element/distance=2 marc.500a any baz
> > mean?
> Exactly equal to two elements apart. The above query is not
> meaningful, however given a different pre-supposed structure
> it could be.
Ditto - someone on seeing distance=0 will ask what happens if
distance=1, etc. Not valid is an acceptable answer.
In fact these aren't hypothetical questions - any server developer will
need to know how to react to MARC searches that come in with unit= and
distance= set to other values that element and 0 respectively.
> > Well then we have a problem - your last example works
> because 500$a is
> > included within 500.
> > However, in the case of
> > marc.500:1 any 1 prox// marc.500a any baz
> Correct. That's not a 'problem', it's an empty result set.
Well, it is a 'problem' in that the above was originally *your*
suggested "cleaner" encoding (than my relational modifier approach) for
queries of the form
Records containing MARC 500 field with an indicator1 value of 1 and a $a
subfield which contains baz