LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


ZNG@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  November 2005

ZNG November 2005

Subject:

Re: Proximity search and Brahmagupta

From:

"Matthew J. Dovey" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:57:58 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (109 lines)

> >'Records containing MARC 500 field with an indicator1 value 
> of 1 and a 
> >$a subfield which contains "baz"'
> 
> You proposed this as a requirement, rather than the person 
> asking about the CQL and MARC.  I'd like to hear if this is 
> actually a requirement or not.

A few examples from the MARC spec where you would need this to do
certain searches:

marc.260:1=3 means current/latest publisher whereas
marc.260:1=2 means intervening publisher

marc.270:1=1 AND marc.270:2=0 means primary mailing address
marc.270:1=2 means secondary (unspecied type) address
 
marc.545:1=0 means biographical data
marc.545:1=1 means historical data

marc.852:1=0 means location using Library of Congress classification
marc.852:1=1 means location using Dewey Decimal location

marc.650:2=0 means subject (topical) in LCSH
marc.650:2=1 means subject (topical) in LCSH (Childrens)
marc.650:2=2 means subject (topical) in MESH

etc.

> >was felt to be a misuse of relational modifiers and would not allow 
> >marc.500$a any/indicator1 any "1 2 3" "baz" (although you 
> could expand 
> >that to the obvious long disjunction).
> 
> How?  You can't put boolean OR into a relation either.

Oh, clearly the obvious disjunction isn't that obvious. I didn't want to
have to type out the following in full, but if you wanted to do
marc.500$a any/indicator1 any "1 2 3" "baz", you could use this query:

marc.500$a any/indicator1="1" "baz" OR marc.500$a any/indicator1="2"
"baz" OR marc.500$a any/indicator1="3" "baz"
 
> >Rob suggested that
> >marc.500$a any "baz" prox/unit=element/distance=0 marc.500:1 = 1
> 
> I suggested unit=element for cases where it was actually in 
> the same element.

Errr not in your original e-mail (unless there's another Rob Sanderson
about (see below) - not least of all because we hadn't been discussing
such cases at that point!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rob Sanderson
> Sent: 28 November 2005 14:19
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: CQL and Marc record fields
> 
> > Also for indicators you may want to form a query of the form 
> > marc.245$a = "Smith" where the Indicator1 = 4 Which isn't 
> the same as 
> > marc.245$a = "Smith" and marc.245i1 = 4 (as this does not 
> imply that 
> > the second operand applies to the same marc field as the first).
> > 
> > Hence for indicators is seems likely that these would have to be 
> > handled by relational modifiers.
> 
> A cleaner version is:
> 
>   marc.245$a = "Smith"
>     prox/unit=element/distance=0
>   marc.245i1 = "4"
> 
> See also the discussion on the ZeeRex context set concerning 
> searching for attributes with an attribute set.
> 
> One issue with putting sub-searches in relational modifiers 
> is that the following query is invalid:
> 
>   marc.245$a =/marc.245i1 any "4 6 8" "Smith"
> 
> as 'any' cannot be used as the central token of a relational modifier.
> 
> Rob
> 
> --
> Dr Robert Sanderson
> Dept of Computer Science, University of Liverpool
> Home:     http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~azaroth/
> Cheshire: http://www.cheshire3.org/
> ------------------------


> >My rescue attempt of this which was
> >marc.500$a any "baz" prox/unit=parent/distance=0 marc.500:1 
> = 1 equally 
> >unreadable, went without comment as everyone got involved in an 
> >abstract philosophical debate on proximity in structural data...
> 
> I don't have any complaints about unit=parent, beyond that it 
> should be profiled rather than put into CQL itself

I took that as read!

Matthew

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager