[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [search-ws] queryn: Some further comments
I believe you've correctly summarized my sense of the conversation. I'd prefer that cql-form not be in the standard, but I do believe we need to document the queryType definition requirements and in the standard we should point to a web page where we will document the know queryTypes. If we (Tony) wants to support Booleans before or after, then I think we should have a separate queryType for each syntax. But, once he's gone through the effort of describing how to create forms for one of those syntaxes, I suspect he'll not see a need to do the same for the other syntax. Why would a form creator care? As long as the rule is clear about where the Boolean goes, I suspect the forms will get created correctly. Make the documentation unambiguous about where the Boolean goes in relation to the terms and I think the problem is solved. Ralph > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Dovey [mailto:m.dovey@jisc.ac.uk] > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 3:15 PM > To: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress; LeVan,Ralph; Hammond,Tony; > 'OASIS SWS TC' > Subject: RE: [search-ws] queryn: Some further comments > > > "The queryN parameter is peculiar to the cql-form queryType" > > Can we go back a few steps, and check what we agree on. > > Where I think we are at is: > > i) we agree that we change the spec to allow the value queryType to determine > which parameter(s) contain the query. The default is that the query will be > passed via a parameter called "query", but a specific queryType can specify > otherwise. > > ii) we agree that we should introduce a new queryType to handle Tony's use > case. This queryType will use different parameters to pass the query than the > "query" parameter. > > Where we still need to agree: > > i) the name for this new queryType - or are we happy with "cql-form" > > ii) the status of this queryType - normative, non-normative but included in spec; > Nature specific extension etc. I would favour that this is at least a non-normative > part of the spec. > > ii) the syntax for this queryType > a) the need for "queryn" parameter - although I think we've probably reached > the conclusion it is needed > b) leading versus trailing Booleans > c) exact names for the parameters (although q[i|r|t|b]<n> seems the current > candidate). > > > Matthew > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]