Print

Print


that is what I thought, but the discussion seemed to be taking place absent 
knowledge of the various units that we specified (or was that in an 
attribute set, anyways?)

-markh


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ray Denenberg" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: CQL and Marc record fields


> Mark, CQL proximity is almost entirely based on Z39.50 (only thing missing
> is the 'exclusion flag' which nobody ever liked anyway  -- except Ralph).
> --Ray
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> On
> Behalf Of Mark Hinnebusch
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: CQL and Marc record fields
>
> 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
>