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
All terms are assumed to have
- Truncation attribute of 104
- Completeness attribute of 1 (incomplete
- 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

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

Please give though to this soon.