LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


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  September 2010

ZNG September 2010

Subject:

Re: RV: Boolean search within an index

From:

Tim Williams <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Fri, 3 Sep 2010 08:49:17 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (79 lines)

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> No, there is no such validator.  That is because the formal
> specification of CQL was developed separately from, and subsequent to,
> the actual implementation.  It also has several bugs in it.  All in
> all, I would advice ignoring the formal specification completely.

Completely?  What reference should would-be implementors use then -
surely not reverse-engineering a given implementation?  Personally, I
find the lack of openness in some of the replies here unsatisfying but
there needs to be a specification reference somewhere, right?

--tim

> On 3 September 2010 12:48, Ricardo Eito Brun <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Regarding this e-mail, to check the correctness of the queries against the specification, is there any "validator" for CQL queries that could be used to check their correctness backed by OASIS, LOC or similar?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Ricardo
>>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors [mailto:[log in to unmask]] En nombre de Mike Taylor
>> Enviado el: jueves, 02 de septiembre de 2010 22:18
>> Para: [log in to unmask]
>> Asunto: Re: Boolean search within an index
>>
>> On 2 September 2010 18:12, Tim Williams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> I have this need to support complex boolean queries within a field.
>>> I'd like to not have to repeat the 'index relation' over and over
>>> within the statement.  Rather, I'd like something like
>>>
>>>   title = ((fish OR turtle) AND sea) - though, much more complex -
>>> and don't want to have to write:
>>>
>>>  ((title = fish OR title = turtle) AND title = sea)
>>>
>>> Logically, it's just projecting the index and relation upon the
>>> enclosed terms.  Before we depart from the CQL spec I thought I'd see
>>> if there was a way to get similar 'shortcutting' using build-in
>>> extension mechanisms?
>>
>> Although the formal specification of CQL stupidly prohibits this
>> useful and unambiguous syntax, most or maybe all actual
>> implementations support it -- certainly the C/C++ parser in YAZ,
>> CQL-Java, the Perl CQL::Parser and thr Ruby gem all do.  Have you
>> tried just going ahead and doing it?  If it's being rejected, what CQL
>> parser are you using?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --tim
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ______________________
>> This message including any attachments may contain confidential
>> information, according to our Information Security Management System,
>>  and intended solely for a specific individual to whom they are addressed.
>>  Any unauthorised copy, disclosure or distribution of this message
>>  is strictly forbidden. If you have received this transmission in error,
>>  please notify the sender immediately and delete it.
>>
>> ______________________
>> Este mensaje, y en su caso, cualquier fichero anexo al mismo,
>>  puede contener informacion clasificada por su emisor como confidencial
>>  en el marco de su Sistema de Gestion de Seguridad de la
>> Informacion siendo para uso exclusivo del destinatario, quedando
>> prohibida su divulgacion copia o distribucion a terceros sin la
>> autorizacion expresa del remitente. Si Vd. ha recibido este mensaje
>>  erroneamente, se ruega lo notifique al remitente y proceda a su borrado.
>> Gracias por su colaboracion.
>>
>> ______________________
>>
>>
>

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