 |
 |
I assume that: 1) resultSet in a boolean operation refers to the original query and not the actual list of records (server will generally generate a new query) and 2) resultSet stand alone in a query refers to the actual list of records (to be able to request specific records from a resultset) 3) the parameters startRecord and maximumRecords do not effect the resultset (the resultset refers to the complete set) Is this correct? Theo >>> [log in to unmask] 30-05-02 14:26 >>> You can do the same thing with a result set that you can with other terms. (dog or resultSet=1) and (cat or resultSet=2). Ralph > -----Original Message----- > From: Theo van Veen [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 8:21 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Betr.: revised bnf for cql > > > 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 >