- From: Archie Warnock <warnock@awcubed.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:52:25 -0500
- To: "Mike Taylor" <mike@seatbooker.net>
- Cc: <www-zig@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Taylor" <mike@seatbooker.net> > The CQL syntax is designed such that you can add other relation > keywords in without invalidating or changing the semantics of any > previously valid search. So it would be a simple matter to support > (for example) ``gils.location within "10,10,20,20"'' and similar So something like ``geo.time_period_of_content before 1998'' wouldn't break anything - it would just be domain-specific, and not actually enumerated within the initial specification? Perhaps this addresses some of Eliot's concerns? > queries. If there's interest, I could even tweak my CQL suite > (http://zing.z3950.org/cql/java/) to configure its set of recognised > relations at run-time from a configuration file. I can see where that might be useful ;-) > In CQL, the equivalent information to structure attributes is often > implied by the relation or a relation modifier. For example, the > "exact" relation, which specifies an exact match between the supplied > search-term and database field as opposed to a keyword search, implies > the BIB-1 attribute 4=108 (structure=string) as opposed to phrase, > word-list or similar. It may be that new relations and/or relation > modifiers can meet your need in this area. Actually, I kind of like this approach for at least one instance we've run into. We've had a bit of ambiguity with the temporal relations, as some make sense when the term is a single date and not when the term is a date interval, and vice versa. Tying the structure to the relation in this way could resolve some of that ambiguity. > > It would sure be handy for assisting the migration process to CQL. > > The Index Data guys and I have been toying with the idea of a "Type-1 > query" qualifier-set for CQL, in which you'd be able to specify > qualified queries like this: > > "type1.1=1016,5=108"=fruit > > I'm not prepared yet to say anything about whether this would be A > Good Thing or A Bad Thing (:-) but it is at least A Possible Thing. It's probably A Good Enough Thing for right now. Archie -- 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 11:52:31 UTC