Re: [search-ws] cql bnf

[Ashley Sanders <a.sanders@manchester.ac.uk>]

Ray,

> I've attached two files (I don't know if this listserv allows attachments,
> we'll see)
> one is the "current" cql bnf, and the other is proposed to replace it,
> written by Tony Hammond, who is on the SRU Editorial Board where we kicked
> this around a bit but never reached a conclusion.
> 
>  I would like to use Tony's bnf  for the OASIS work.
> 
> I  haven't been able to give it the close scrutiny it needs, but perhaps we
> could all take a look at it.

I've had a quick look and I'm not sure if the new version says
the same things about the so-called reserved words and, or, not, prox 
and sortby.

I pretty sure the original CQL allowed (horrendous) queries like

    and or not  -- in pqf notation: @or "and" "not"

    and and and  -- in pqf notation: @and "and" "and"

    etc, etc, ...

Tony's document says and, or, not, prox and sortby are reserved words
and are specifically excluded from simple-name and simple-string.
The original document has the following:

    "Reserved words are 'and', 'or', 'not', and 'prox' (case
     insensitive). When a reserved word is used in a search term,
     case is preserved."

Which to me, seems to say that they are reserved words and then
goes on to say, well actually you can use them anyway.

I think Tony's version excludes queries like "and and and"
-- which may actually be a good thing.

Ashley.
-- 
Ashley Sanders               a.sanders@manchester.ac.uk
Copac http://copac.ac.uk A Mimas service funded by JISC