- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:37:33 -0800
- To: "Alan Kent" <ajk@mds.rmit.edu.au>, "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Not sure if anybody ever answered your basic question about whether DASL addresses content querying. It does. Here is the query fragment that would search the body of a document: <D:where> <D:contains>Peter Forsberg</D:contains> </D:where> This is similar to the property queries, but it does not name a property, therefore it's the content that must be searched for the string. Note that it's possible to do exact string matching ("Peter Forsberg") and string-by-string matching ("Peter" and "Forsberg", not necessarily together). Section 5.13.1 of DASL shows both examples. Lisa > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Alan Kent > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 12:25 AM > To: WebDAV > Subject: DASL - who wants to use it? (requirements spec?) > > > I remember the recent question about DASL (was it this list?). > I was wondering if part of the problem with DASL is the question > of whether it addresses a need, or addresses it appropriately. > > We have a text searching engine that can do lots of funky searches > etc. on the content of resources using fields (lets say dublin > core elements). But this would be quite a different thing to > querying on WebDAV properties. > > Hence I was interested to understand better the goal of DASL. > Is it to be able to query WebDAV properities (and nothing else). > Or was it intended to be broader and cover the harder problem > of querying content as well? > > Just curious to understand the intended scope better before > I jump in. I found a reference to a dasl requirements document > (I have not looked it up yet). But is it still valid? I ask > only because if its been a while and if no one has implemented > it, is it because they have been busy, or because DASL has > missed the mark in some way? > > Alan > > ps: I noticed that DASL seems to allow other queries to be > plugged in. While this is good, for the above I am not after > an answer like "you can do anything you like". I am more > interested in "what do people like/want?" > > pps: I also noticed that the "basic" query langauge looked > rather long when you got down to it - orderby, contains, like, > three value logic... Convienient if you have an SQL engine around > I guess.
Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 13:40:06 UTC