I think we did a fairly good job with proximity in Z39.50. Why not adopt that structure? (well, not the physical structure, but the set of defining terms) -markh ----- Original Message ----- From: "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 1:19 PM Subject: Re: CQL and Marc record fields > -----Original Message----- > From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > On Behalf Of Mike Taylor > Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 12:50 PM > > Maybe the pragmatic approach is to introduce a new boolean, "with", > which is explicitly defined to nothing more or less than an > abbreviation of prox/unit=element/distance=0. Then server > implementors can tackle "with" free of Proximity Fear. Please, God, let that be a joke! I've seen this slippery slope gone down before in the 70's as Dialog and ORBIT and BRS fought their prox wars, each trying to come up with the cleverest name for a peculiar kind of proximity. That slope is never-ending. Let's don't go there. Ralph