Rob Sanderson wrote:

>>CQL is a standard of it's own, isn't it? You better keep this part in an 
>>independent document and refer to it. By the way is there a full mapping 
>>between CCL and CQL or what exactely is their relationship?

> There isn't a mapping between CCL and CQL, but if you'd like to write
> one up, then I'm sure that it would be appreciated by many :)

I still wonder how people can call something a standard that is not 
publically available. CCL is very poorly documented - you can use it in 
many OPACs in some way but libraries seem to hide it from the user. If 
you send me a PDF of ISO 8777 I can try to summarize the differences and 
  commonalities with CQL.