Re: Proposal for truncation type 105: Masking

> Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:03:38 -0400
> From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
> 
> 1. No change to the type 104 truncation.
> [...]
> 2. A new truncation type is proposed, 105:"Masking".
> [...]
> other implementors may develop and propose a more complex type, 107.)
> [...]
> 3.  Another new truncation type will be proposed, 106: "ISO 8777".

So we will then have the following truncation attributes in BIB-1:

	101   process # in search term
	102   regExpr-1 (POSIX, IIRC)
	103   regExpr-2 (deliberately lkeft unspecified)
	104   Z39.58
	105   Masking (similar to, but different from, shell wildcards)
	106   ISO 8777 (essentially identical to 104)
	107   "complex", whatever that means.

Seven different ways of doing pattern-matching.  Well.  It's _easy_ to
see how that will improve interoperability.

On to the specific proposal:

> Type 105: "Masking".  Proposed Definition.
> 
> A single asterisk (*) is used to mask  zero or more characters.
> A single question mark (?) is used to mask zero or one character.
> [...]
> Backslash is used to escape ? and * (as well as itself):

This is very, very close to what Unix shells have used for years - a
notation that's been adopted in numerous other contexts due to its
familiarity.  The difference is that in shell pattern-matching, "?"
matches exactly one character rather zero or one.  So the
shell-pattern "new?" mathes "news" and "newt", but not "new".

If you really want the "?" semantics you described above, I would
suggest using different metacharacters to avoid giving the misleading
impression that the wildcard patterns have their familiar meanings.

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "That's what I'm about: scoring goals" -- Andy Cole,
	 Grandstand, 16th March 1996.  BBC comedy at its very best.

Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 07:06:34 UTC