 |
 |
Having gotten no response to the question I posed a day or so ago let me ask it more pointedly, or better yet, I propose: The following original CQL premise should be dropped: All terms are assumed to have - Truncation attribute of 104 - Completeness attribute of 1 (incomplete subfield). - Position attribute of 3 (any position in field). I'm proposing to drop these because I wish to force the issue one way or the other, so we can move on with defining indexes. Originally, Ralph's idea was that indexes would be defined in terms of a Use and a Structure attribute (both bib-1) and the Truncation, Completeness and Position values would be implicit. However, the thinking now (I think) is that we can define indexes that specify values for up to five bib-1 attributes (all but relation) and that we might even define indexes using other attribute sets besides bib-1 (e.g. the cross domain and utility sets). Most of the Bath searches will be invalid if we adhere to the original rules. One of the founding principles of SRW was that there be mappings to/from Bath searches. So something's got to give. Please give though to this soon. --Ray