RE: [search-ws] CQL discussion on SRU list

["LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>]

I’m not saying that it is supported in any of our blessed BNFs.  I’m saying that the evidence is clear that Mike has successfully mangled the BNF to make it support this feature without harming the BNF or the other features.  Given that evidence, why would we not consider it?

 

Ralph

 

From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 4:27 PM
To: LeVan,Ralph; Denenberg, Ray; 'OASIS SWS TC'
Subject: RE: [search-ws] CQL discussion on SRU list

 

Ralph - just so I am clear about what you are saying (before I jump into this)….  this is not supported by the OASIS BNF. Are you saying it is supported by the 1.2 BNF? The 1.1 BNF?

 

--Ray

 

From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:levan@oclc.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 3:38 PM
To: Denenberg, Ray; OASIS SWS TC
Subject: RE: [search-ws] CQL discussion on SRU list

 

Not me.  It can clearly be coded into the grammar without obvious detriment as I’ve been using Mike’s parser from the beginning.

 

Ralph

 

From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 2:31 PM
To: OASIS SWS TC
Subject: [search-ws] CQL discussion on SRU list

 

Our friend Mike Taylor once again has stirred up the old  title=(cat or dog) issue. It's really getting tiresome. I already have high blood pressure. Can one of you respond, rationally, without further health risk. I can't.

 

--Ray