I think we did a fairly good job with proximity in Z39.50. Why not adopt
that structure? (well, not the physical structure, but the set of defining
----- Original Message -----
From: "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: CQL and Marc record fields
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 12:50 PM
> Maybe the pragmatic approach is to introduce a new boolean, "with",
> which is explicitly defined to nothing more or less than an
> abbreviation of prox/unit=element/distance=0. Then server
> implementors can tackle "with" free of Proximity Fear.
Please, God, let that be a joke!
I've seen this slippery slope gone down before in the 70's as Dialog and
ORBIT and BRS fought their prox wars, each trying to come up with the
cleverest name for a peculiar kind of proximity.
That slope is never-ending. Let's don't go there.