Re: [search-ws] CQL Parsing Questions

["Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>]

It is intended for both.  The simple queries are intended to be keyed in by 
humans, the complex ones (with prefix assignments, proximity clauses, etc.) 
are not.

In any case, does someone have a simple suggestion for fixing the BNF to 
eliminate this flaw?

--Ray

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>
To: "Ashley Sanders" <a.sanders@manchester.ac.uk>; "Ray Denenberg, Library 
of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>
Cc: "Hammond,Tony" <T.Hammond@nature.com>; <search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:41 AM
Subject: RE: [search-ws] CQL Parsing Questions


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ashley Sanders [mailto:a.sanders@manchester.ac.uk]
> Do people feel that cql is intended for users or machines? My feeling
> is that it should be for machine-to-machine communication and
therefore
> doesn't need any syntactic sugar.

I'm afraid it is intended for human production.  If we were only
interested in machines, we'd be using XCQL.

That doesn't mean that all the extra baloney to support minimizing
typing couldn't go away.

Ralph