W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-zig@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Version 1.0 of SRW and CQL

From: Archie Warnock <warnock@awcubed.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:42:08 -0500
Message-ID: <006f01c29a2a$232b0100$0901a8c0@pommard>
To: "Mike Taylor" <mike@seatbooker.net>
Cc: <www-zig@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Taylor" <mike@seatbooker.net>
> Yes -- although you'd most likely express that particular one using
> the more familiar CQL relation "<", which has an obvious
> interpretation for dates.

Actually, probably not in this case (since the semantics of "during" are a
bit different that what we might associate with "="), but it's probably
appropriate to take this either offline or to the ZING list.

> BTW., the emerging standard way of expression multi-word CQL
> qualifiers seems to be using multiCaps rather than underscores: so,
> while no-one can tell you how to define your own qualifier-set, you
> might like to use geo.timePeriodOfContent instead.

Fine by me...

> > I can see where that might be useful ;-)
> Is that "interest"?  :-)

"Perhaps" ;-D

> Yes; but I would prefer, if we can get the GILS/GEO people to play, to
> spend some time in seeing whether "proper" CQL can actually express
> the query needs of that community, without having to "escape" to
> Type-1 attributes.  That solution's always there if it turns out to be
> needed, though.

Count me in - I think we can generate some interest from those communities.
I expect Eliot will have something to contribute here shortly, anyway.  I'm
reassured, at least for the time being, that the things we require from GEO
(and GILS and CIP) seem to be possible, if not explicitly enumerated.


-- Archie Warnock                   warnock@awcubed.com
-- A/WWW Enterprises                http://www.awcubed.com
--    As a matter of fact, I _do_ speak for my employer.
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 12:42:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:05 UTC