Mark, CQL proximity is almost entirely based on Z39.50 (only thing missing
is the 'exclusion flag' which nobody ever liked anyway -- except Ralph).
--Ray
-----Original Message-----
From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Mark Hinnebusch
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CQL and Marc record fields
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
terms)
-markh
----- 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.
Ralph
|