- From: Alan Kent <ajk@mds.rmit.edu.au>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:18:58 +1000
- To: ZIG <www-zig@w3.org>, www-zig-request@w3.org
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 01:21:24PM -0400, Kevin_Thomas@ovid.com wrote: > Actually, I like the RPN version better. It's partly because it enables us > to put together queries that are unambiguous. > > For instance, AND is a keyword in the search > dog AND cat > but what about > head and neck injuries > > OK, so I suppose you could tell people to put search terms in quotes, so > this example would become > "head and neck injuries" > But should the system also accept > head "and" neck injuries I would argue to force all text to be in quotes and all reserved words not to be in quotes. Then there is no ambiguity, and you can introduce new reserved words in the future without any danger of breaking existing queries. Remember, the ZNG query syntax does not have to be what users are given to enter. To me another issue that has not been brought up (which relates to the reason behind ZNG) is how hard is it to do coimplex data types with current SOAP toolkits. If a goal is to allow ease of use from multiple programming languages, then its important that the SOAP packets be easy to construct using client toolkits. Using RPN marked up as an XML tree I don't think will be as easy to use - and personally I hope ease of use is an important goal for ZNG. Alan
Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 20:19:42 UTC