OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

search-ws message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: proximity exclusion flag

I've run across a problem with our proximity "proposal" in the message I posted last week, specifically:

-- Adding a boolean modifier 'prox' which acts the same as the current
boolean, however can be attached to either AND (the current style of
proximity) or  NOT for negative proximity.
* "fish and" not/prox chips
   ("fish and" followed by anything other than chips)

The problem is, I don't see how you can add proximity modifiers: if you put a slash after prox above, how do you know whether the modifier following the slash is a boolean modifier (modifying NOT) or a "modifier modifier" (modifying PROX). 

('m trying to come up with an example for the PPT I'm preparing, for the OGC meeting, something along the lines of "find cities with name 'washington' not within 50 miles of a city with name 'baltimore' ".)

Back up and recall (nearly 20 years ago) that we had this conversation for Z39.50 as reflected in:


-------------------------------------------------------- The Proximity Test
The proximity test, ProxTest, includes a Distance, Relation, Unit, and two boolean flags: Ordered and Exclusion.

In other words, in Z39.50 we have an exclusion flag for this purpose, which we don't have in CQL.   (Thanks to Ralph, who first articulated the distinction. I still remember, after all these years.  Or was it Bob Waldstein.  Oh well. Many Mark Hinnebusch.)  So I think that rather than changing proximity from a boolean to a boolean modifier, maybe we should just add this "exclusion" flag.
Anyone agree with me on this?

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]