I side with Mike on this one:
"eq" means "exactly the same thing"
"adj" means "contains this phrase"
The question remains how to say where the phrase should occur, I
guess. Placing the carat in the search string seems to go against the
notion of relation modifiers. adj/beginsWith (or something) seems
more 'cql-y' to me.
-Ross.
On 7/27/06, Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
> > >If "exact" is deprecated, what is the preferred way to do string
> > >searches?
> >
> > Anchor.
>
> No, no, no. The point of the "eq" relation is that it always tests
> for exact equality -- whether applied to a text or numeric index.
> This removes the current ambiguity where "=" sometimes means an
> adjacency search (in text) and sometimes means equality (against
> numeric indexes).
>
> So the current search
> dc.title exact jaws
> would become
> dc.title eq jaws
>
> The current search
> dc.title = jaws
> Could, for total explicitness, be re-cast as
> dc.title adj jaws
> but would typically remain in the old form, as the new server-choice
> semantics for "=" would be interpreted as meaning "adj" by any
> rational server.
>
> > The approach we discussed was to extend anchoring to strings, if
> > 'exact' is depricated. (Though a different anchor character may be
> > waranted.)
>
> I do not believe that this approach was ever discussed; and in any
> case it is very much inferior to the simple use of "eq".
>
> _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
> )_v__/\ "No time to lose!" -- Monty Python's Flying Circus.
>
>
|