[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [search-ws] CQL Parsing Questions
Currently: search-clause-group = search-clause-group Boolean-modified subquery | subquery subquery = "(" query ")" / search-clause Why can't these two be replaced by: search-clause-group = "("search-clause-group")" | search-clause | search-clause-group Boolean-modified search-clause Or for better readability: search-clause-group = quoted-search-clause-group | unquoted-search-clause-group quoted-search-clause-group = "("search-clause-group")" unquoted-search-clause-group = search-clause | search-clause-group Boolean-modified search-clause --Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ashley Sanders" <a.sanders@manchester.ac.uk> To: "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 7:43 AM Subject: Re: [search-ws] CQL Parsing Questions > Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: >> Tony, addressing your first question: >> >> From: "Hammond, Tony" <t.hammond@nature.com> >>> title=(author=kernighan) >>> is equivalent to >>> author=kernighan >>> " >>> >>> and following up with him he claimed this was cooked into the BNF >> >> Well first take a look at this thread and see if it helps put this into >> some perspective. >> http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0603&L=srw-ed&D=0&T=0&X=2C676213DF8F2521EB&P=1982 >> This is a convoluted mess that is better ignored. The grammar has a hole >> that lead to nonsensical queries and I think that the consensus was that >> it is harder to fix the grammar than to just say that queries like these >> are nonsensical. > > One can't feeling that if the grammer allows that, then the grammer is > broken and should be fixed. > >> The real issue was a query like "title=(A or B)". Is it a shorthand >> for - "title=A or title=B". > > That also looks like an horrendous piece of syntax to me. I can't think of > any other language that allows you to specify queries like that. > Admittedly it is often what people want to do when they first come > across boolean statements, but I really don't think we shouldn't let > them. Especially if it results in a nonsensical mess like > title=(author=xxxx)). > > 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. > > Ashley. > -- > Ashley Sanders a.sanders@manchester.ac.uk > Copac http://copac.ac.uk A Mimas service funded by JISC > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]