RE: [search-ws] "exact" gone as a relation in CQL 1.2????

" Whose brilliant idea was that? "

The entire SRU Editorial Board (now defunct) including you.

From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:levan@oclc.org]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 2:56 PM
To: Denenberg, Ray; OASIS SWS TC
Subject: RE: [search-ws] "exact" gone as a relation in CQL 1.2????

Well that sucks! :-)

Whose brilliant idea was that? Any chance we can make them synonyms?

Mike has a compatibility mode, so this isn’t fatal for me, just unfortunate.

Ralph

From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 2:49 PM
To: LeVan,Ralph; 'OASIS SWS TC'
Subject: RE: [search-ws] "exact" gone as a relation in CQL 1.2????

See:

http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/resources/cql-context-set-v1-2.html

RELATIONS:

"Note: the relations 'scr' and 'exact' have been replaced by '=' and '==',"

From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:levan@oclc.org]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 2:41 PM
To: OASIS SWS TC
Subject: [search-ws] "exact" gone as a relation in CQL 1.2????

Mike’s new parser insists that “exact” is not a relation in verion 1.2. Can this possibly be true? If so, why? I’ve got zillions of clients that think “exact” is the relation to be using. What should the be using instead?

Puzzled.

Ralph

search-ws message