From: "Mike Taylor" <[log in to unmask]>
> The irony is that Z39.50 actually make _much_ more effort to specify
> semantics than most other standards -- and yet still finds itself in
> the situation where many implementations do not respond correctly to
> the BIB-1 attribute 6=3 (completeness=complete field) which is how
> Eric should be able to do what he wants here.
>
> Not that I have any good answers to this problem ... but I DO know
> that inventing more and more replacement standards it NOT the answer.
> Everything that's come along since Z39.50 has suffered from exactly
> the same problem but more so.

I think this remains to be seen for SRU/CQL, in particular for the example 
at hand, how to search for exact title.  There are two related issues: one, 
how arcane the standard is, and two, how closely implementations conform to 
the intended semantics. And clearly the first has a bearing on the second.

And even I would say that Z39.50 is a bit on the arcance side when it comes 
to formulating a query for exact title. With  SRU/CQL there is an "exact" 
relation ('exact' in 1.1,  '=='  in 1.2).  So I would think there is less 
excuse for a server to apply a creative interpretation. If it cannot support 
"exact title" it should fail the search. With Z39.50 there is more perceived 
latitude for a server to pretend it supports something it doesn't.

--Ray