Poul Henrik J´┐Żrgensen wrote:

> If alternatively we wish to introduce a new boolean operator composed of the
> well binary operator AND in some combination with the unary operator NOT,
> then we should call it something else e.g. either AND-NOT or NOT-AND.

We're not introducing a new boolean operator. It's the same "and-not" that we
have in the type-1 query. (If you want to view it as some combination of unary
NOT and binary AND, fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the same
binary and-not we've always had in Z39.50.)


Ray Denenberg
Library of Congress
[log in to unmask]