Print

Print


This looks looks fine to me. I have one remark, that I mentioned earlier but I do not know to what extent that was agreement or not.

I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to leave out the result-set out of the query completely and use this as a separate parameter in the request because the resultset is completely different from indexes. When the resultset is being used in a query, the server has to reconstruct the complete query anyway. It gives the false idee that you can do the same things with a resultset as you can with the other indexes. Especially in distributed searching it would be nicer when queries to different servers can be identical and do not contain elements that are so server specific.  

Theo


>>> [log in to unmask] 29-05-02 20:20 >>>
I've (re-)written  bnf for CQL based on recent
discussion.

Not that the discussion has been all that useful
in trying to figure out what people really want
but it's time to focus on stabalizing this.  I've
put it up at
http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/cql.html 

This is based on Alan's proposal as well as
Ralph's earlier work, and the recent discussion.

Officially, this is the current state of CQL, so
if there are specifics of this draft that you
don't like, I'll change it, if you send concrete
suggestions.  It's time to force the issue and
find out how close we are to some consensus.

--Ray