Re: Attribute Architecture proposal

Alan Kent wrote:

>I think Mike and Rob have agreed on format/structure becoming string/words
>in the Utility attribute set (as distinct from the complete proposal
>I put up verbatim).
>
>Sleeping on it overnight, I think adding a new 'type' to Class 1 might
>be a bit more extreme than people may be willing to bear, so I am
>changing tack slightly and think maybe its less impact to move the
>All/Any/Adj Words attributes into expansion/interpretation. I have
>grabbed a copy of the Utility attribute set definition from the LOC
>web site and had a go at marking up some new text. Changes are in
>green and red (with strikeout).
>
>    http://www.mds.rmit.edu.au/~ajk/z39.50/util.html
>

I've read it and I'd like to reduce the size of the spec if possible:)

The spec says that comparison should only be one of "all", "any", "adj" if
structure is word. If that is the case, why not make a new comparion=string
compare (14) and skip structure type entirely?

I guess one would not: there will be other structure types in the future
(date?).

Since, all,any,ajd,_relevance_ are now all of type comparison, does that
mean we can no longer say "relevance search - all words must match"?
Admitted, if the comparison type was repeatable it's would be a 
different story
(but that is a sign of an insufficient model).

-- Adam

>Thanks
>Alan
>
>
>  
>

Received on Monday, 21 July 2003 05:25:41 UTC