Mike Taylor wrote:
> My immediate feeling was that a prox-based solution would just scare
> everyone off because, well, prox is scary. But maybe people feel the
> same way about relation-modifiers, too.
Proximity search is not scary but rarely implemented, documented and
used. There are some workarounds
but you really have to know it before to find out how to use proximity
search. I wonder why OPACs and search engines don't show searching tips
like "hey, you have a lot of results! Try proximity search!" more often.
> 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.
Nobody will type in "prox/unit=element/distance=0" by hand. The common
expression for proximity is "near" so please don't introduce something
new. For the end-user you better rewrite CQL queries anyway
(for instance 'cat 2 words before hat' becomes '"cat"
prox/distance>2/unit=word/ordered "hat"') so
"prox/unit=element/distance=0" should be fine for implementors.