 |
 |
Of the examples you give, only Exp1 AND (NOT Exp2) is legal for us. More clearly, the query, "NOT English" will fail. Ralph > -----Original Message----- > From: Poul Henrik Jørgensen [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 8:53 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Cc: [log in to unmask] > Subject: RE: CQL NOT Operator > > > Hi Ralp, > > You state, that your "NOT" is not (sic) a unary operator. But > ist seems to > me, that you ARE in fact using "NOT" to designate the unary > operator, which > negates a corresponding logical expression, e.g.: > > NOT Exp1 (NOT "Poul Henrik understands this") => "Poul > Henrik is confused" > Exp1 AND (NOT Exp2) > Exp1 OR (NOT Exp2) > NOT (Exp1 AND Exp2) > NOT (Exp1 OR Exp2) > > Best regards, > Poul Henrik > mailto:[log in to unmask] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 24. september 2001 14:31 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: CQL NOT Operator > > > I don't know of many systems that support the unary NOT. None of the > systems that I have ever worked on support it. > > I mean for NOT to mean AND NOT, which is usually just > shortened to NOT. If > you really think this is going to cause confusion, then we > can use the name > ANDNOT, but that is just as arbitrary and just telling folks > that NOT is a > binary operator. > > Ralph > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Poul Henrik Jørgensen [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 3:31 PM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Cc: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: CQL NOT Operator > > > > > > Hi Ralp, > > > > In CQL, do you intend "NOT" to represent the binary operator, > > that is often > > called "NOT EQUAL"? > > > > If that is the case; I propose to denote the operator > > something else (eg. > > "<>" or "NE", since "NOT" usually denote the 1-ary operator. > > > > Best regards, > > Poul Henrik > > mailto:[log in to unmask] > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: 22. august 2001 14:50 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: CQL > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rob Koopman [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:52 PM > > > > > > you on purpose exclude: > > > 1) NOT title:second W title:war (NOT as unary operator) > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > 2) author:ralph,levan OR womble,kelly (qualifier implicitly > > repeated) > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > 3) NEAR > > > > Yes, but I have no problem putting it in. > > > > > > > Can we get away with ? meaning zero or one as a large part of > > > the world uses > > > it now as zero or more. I am a bit worried about: isbn: 123?456 > > > > I'm open to suggestions on how to handle wildcards. I think > > we need to nail > > down wildcard behavior and then allow the servers to declare > > which wildcards > > they support. I know that not all servers can support them > > all and don't > > want to mandate something that can't be done. > > > > I don't feel badly about keeping this language a little > > strict. It was not > > my intention that end-user searches could just be dumped into > > a URL. I'm > > still expecting some kind of expert (human or software) to > > craft the query > > from user input; I'm just trying to make it easier. > > > > Ralph > > >