Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:50:50 -0500
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Adlib Base profile
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of
> Matthew J. Dovey
> 
> Ralph may correct me but his "BasicIndex" which is searched when the
> index is omitted is a conjunction of multiple "indexes" rather than
> "fields" ("It is the union, more or less, of a number of subject rich
> indexes"). i.e.

Sorry, that "more or less" was the qualifier that lets me wiggle out of
that.  My BasicIndex is an index on the fields that I think are
interesting.  There are probably more specific indexes on those fields.
But I also omit some of the fields that were in those more specific
indexes.  Hence the "more or less".

> Tolkien
> 
> is equivalent to some query of the form
> 
> index1 Tolkien or index2 Tolkien or index2 Tolkien or ...

That is specifically what I *don't* do.  I don't want to OR together 100
terms for every unqualified term entered.

> My semantics for serverChoice and serverDefault are that they are
> equivalent to
> 
> index Tolkien

That is exactly what I use serverChoice for.

> Where that index is a single index which could be explicitly used in a
> CQL query. From Ralph's description, you can't do an equivalent
explicit
> CQL query of the form
> 
> BasicIndex Tolkien

But I can do cql.serverchoice Tolkien

Ralph