Re: CCL proposal (quotes)

Now that Z39.58 is no longer, there's no one to complain to.  You can do
whatever you like if you have no need to support what Z39.58 was.


----- Original Message -----

> Okay, I'll just come right out and say it.  I hate the idea of
double-quotes
> inside of strings!  I'm sure I'm just being old fashioned, but it feels
like
> a parsing nightmare.  Whatever happened to the good old backslash to
escape
> things?  I have no problems with a proposal that 123?4\56 means that the
> five is a literal and not a digit and should be ignored by the
question-mark
> processor.  But I don't like 123?4"5"6.
>
> Sorry.
>
> Ralph
>
> "No sir, I don't like it!"
> The Horse from Ren and Stimpy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Reichert [mailto:markr@sirs.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 7:56 AM
> > To: Z39.50 LISTSERV
> > Subject: Re: CCL proposal (quotes)
> >
> >
> > I knew I had it around somewhere.  Z39.58-1992 is/was clear
> > on this matter.
> >
> > 7.7.2.1
> >
> > ...
> > When ? is immediately followed by a positive integer, it
> > shall be used to
> > indicate a limited range of characters to be masked, from
> > zero up to and
> > including the specified integer....  To search embedded
> > numbers, restoration
> > marks are required.  See Section 7.7.7.
> >
> > 7.7.7
> >
> > In order to use a reserved command word, abbreviation,
> > symbol, or operator
> > as a search word, double quotation marks, " ", shall be used
> > to restore its
> > literal meaning....
> >
> > FIND 0?10"5" // ten zeroes followed by a five (my example)
> > FIND C?"14" // word beginning with C, ending in 14 (from
> > Z39.58 appendix)
> >
> > # has no interaction with digits:  Multiple #s shall be used
> > to indicate
> > that a precise number of characters greater than one and qual
> > to the number
> > of # symbols are to be masked (7.7.2.2).
> >
> > The standard never offered an explicit explanation/example of
> > restoring ",
> > but presumably by 7.7.2.1...
> >
> > FIND """Some text in quotes"""
> >
> > There is no mention of the more typical "" escaping.
> >
> > The portion of a <search_term> that corresponds to restoration is:
> >
> > {<restoration><word>[<space><word>]...<restoration>}
> >
> > <restoration> ::= [<space>}<">[<space>]
> > <space> ::= < >[< >}...
> > <word> ::= {<char>|<var_mask>|<exact_mask>}...
> > <var_mask> ::= <?>[<positive_integer>]
> > <exact_mask> ::= <#>[<#>]...
> > <char> ::= <any_searchable_char>
> > <any_searchable_char> ::= any character locally defined as searchable
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > > Not making it to the ZIG, someone sent me some private mail
> > indicating
> > > that Ralph's proposed single digit after '?' change got accepted
> > > and possibly no-one mentioned my counter double quotes suggestion.
> > > Fair enough, if you don't turn up you have less influence.
> > >
> > > Just thought I would have a last bash at a compromise with the idea
> > > that if the CCL regexp is changing, may as well try and get as many
> > > changes in as possible in one hit rather than change it again later.
> > >
> > > To repeat the problem I currently have with the CCL regexp is that
> > > you cannot specify '?' or '#' as literal text (ie, release their
> > > special meaning). So even if there is now allowed only to be a
> > > single digit after '?', while the spec is being changed is it worth
> > > allowing double quotes ('"') to be used to release special chars
> > > anyway? This would allow 'find all terms starting with "#"'.
> > > At present, you cannot do this with the CCL regexp. Normally
> > > regexp's have release mechanism ( \ for regexp-1 I believe).
> > > CCL uses " as a release mechanism so seemed the natural thing
> > > to use in the CCL regexp (rather than \ which in CCL has no
> > > special meaning).
> > >
> > > It seems an oversight not to allow searching for serial numbers etc
> > > using patterns.
> > >
> > >     #41434
> > >     #53423
> > >
> > > If people have to change their CCL regexp implementation anyway,
> > > I would rather do both changes at the same time and make it possible
> > > to search for all possible characters.
> > >
> > > I wonder also if the Z39.58/CCL regexp attribute needs to be renamed
> > > to indicate that it no longer conforms to CCL. I don't actually have
> > > a copy of Z39.58, but if its anything like the ISO version of CCL
> > > the spec is so woolly that it isn't funny! The formal grammar is
> > > given by examples only, and the examples contradict themselves
> > > in places! (Mind you, the copy I have of ISO8777 is pretty old now
> > > so maybe its been improved.) Not stressed, just thought it was the
> > > correct time to at least ask the question.
> > >
> > > Alan
> > > --
> > > Alan Kent (mailto:ajk@mds.rmit.edu.au,
> > http://www.mds.rmit.edu.au/~ajk/)
> > > Project: TeraText Technical Director, InQuirion Pty Ltd
> > (www.inquirion.com)
> > > Postal: Multimedia Database Systems, RMIT, GPO Box 2476V,
> > Melbourne 3001.
> > > Where: RMIT MDS, Bld 91, Level 3, 110 Victoria St, Carlton 3053, VIC
> > Australia.
> > > Phone: +61 3 9925 4114  Reception: +61 3 9925 4099  Fax:
> > +61 3 9925 4098
> >

Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 10:44:45 UTC