FW: RV: Boolean search within an index

["Ray Denenberg" <raydenenberg@starpower.net>]

Once again, Mike Taylor on the SRU list. I don't want to be the one to again
admonish him, could one or preferably several of you do it. And strongly.  

I'm really sick and godam tired of his obnoxious posts. In this case "All in
all, I would advice ignoring the formal specification completely."   What a
stupid and ridiculous thing to post. 

It's probably best if I stay out of the conversation. 

He could be a very useful resource if he were willing to try to contribute
in a positive manner but all he wants to do is snipe.   Someone tell him,
"we welcome your contribution if you would contribute constructively, but if
all you want to do is snipe then shut the hell up".

And once we get that out of the way, let's try to solve this, in a
constructive manner.

Thanks.

--Ray



-----Original Message-----
From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors
[mailto:ZNG@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV] On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 8:02 AM
To: ZNG@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV
Subject: Re: RV: Boolean search within an index

No, there is no such validator.  That is because the formal specification of
CQL was developed separately from, and subsequent to, the actual
implementation.  It also has several bugs in it.  All in all, I would advice
ignoring the formal specification completely.


On 3 September 2010 12:48, Ricardo Eito Brun <reito@gmv.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Regarding this e-mail, to check the correctness of the queries against the
specification, is there any "validator" for CQL queries that could be used
to check their correctness backed by OASIS, LOC or similar?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Ricardo
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors 
> [mailto:ZNG@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV] En nombre de Mike Taylor Enviado el: 
> jueves, 02 de septiembre de 2010 22:18
> Para: ZNG@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV
> Asunto: Re: Boolean search within an index
>
> On 2 September 2010 18:12, Tim Williams <williamstw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have this need to support complex boolean queries within a field.
>> I'd like to not have to repeat the 'index relation' over and over 
>> within the statement.  Rather, I'd like something like
>>
>>   title = ((fish OR turtle) AND sea) - though, much more complex - 
>> and don't want to have to write:
>>
>>  ((title = fish OR title = turtle) AND title = sea)
>>
>> Logically, it's just projecting the index and relation upon the 
>> enclosed terms.  Before we depart from the CQL spec I thought I'd see 
>> if there was a way to get similar 'shortcutting' using build-in 
>> extension mechanisms?
>
> Although the formal specification of CQL stupidly prohibits this 
> useful and unambiguous syntax, most or maybe all actual 
> implementations support it -- certainly the C/C++ parser in YAZ, 
> CQL-Java, the Perl CQL::Parser and thr Ruby gem all do.  Have you 
> tried just going ahead and doing it?  If it's being rejected, what CQL 
> parser are you using?
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --tim
>>
>>
>
> ______________________
> This message including any attachments may contain confidential 
> information, according to our Information Security Management System,
>  and intended solely for a specific individual to whom they are addressed.
>  Any unauthorised copy, disclosure or distribution of this message
>  is strictly forbidden. If you have received this transmission in 
> error,
>  please notify the sender immediately and delete it.
>
> ______________________
> Este mensaje, y en su caso, cualquier fichero anexo al mismo,
>  puede contener informacion clasificada por su emisor como 
> confidencial
>  en el marco de su Sistema de Gestion de Seguridad de la Informacion 
> siendo para uso exclusivo del destinatario, quedando prohibida su 
> divulgacion copia o distribucion a terceros sin la autorizacion 
> expresa del remitente. Si Vd. ha recibido este mensaje
>  erroneamente, se ruega lo notifique al remitente y proceda a su borrado.
> Gracias por su colaboracion.
>
> ______________________
>
>