Excellent, thanks Ray. I approve of OASIS/SRU 2.0's approach in this 
area. :)

Jonathan

Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> From: "Jonathan Rochkind" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>   
>> But you will leave sorting as part of CQL too in any changes to CQL specs, 
>> I hope?  I think CQL has a lot of use even outside of SRU proper, so I 
>> encourage you to leave it's spec not too tightly coupled to SRU.
>>     
>
> The OASIS TC firmly supports this approach (and by "firmly" I mean 100%) so 
> the only way this could get changed is via public comment.
>
>
>   
>> I think there are at least three ways to sort as part of (different 
>> versions of?) SRU now!
>> 1) An actual separate "&sortKeys" query paramater
>> 2) Included in the CQL expression in "&query", using the "sortBy" keyword.
>> 3) In draft not finalized, OASIS/SRU 2.0 methods of specifying XPaths for 
>> sorting.  [Thanks for including the link to the current SRU 2.0 draft, I 
>> didn't know that was publically available anywhere, it's not really 
>> googlable].
>>     
>
> As you corrected yourself in a subsequent message:
>
>   
>> Ah, I think I was wrong below. I must have been looking at different 
>> versions of the SRU spec without realizing it.
>>
>> SRU 1.1 includes a "&sortKeys" parameter, and CQL 1.1 does not include a 
>> "sortBy" clause.
>>
>> SRU 1.2 does NOT include a "&sortKeys" parameter, and CQL 1.2 does include 
>> a "sortBy" clause.
>>     
>
> Yes, that's correct.
>
>
>   
>> Do I have this right?  As SRU 1.2 is the only actual spec I have to work 
>> with... am I right that either top-level "&sortKeys", or embedded in CQL 
>> with "sortBy" would both be legal in SRU 1.2
>>     
> No. Legal in 2.0 - the OASIS version, not legal in 1.2.   In 1.2 it is not 
> legal to have a sort parameter in the request.
>
>  OASIS is standardizing SRU and CQL "loosely coupled" that is, SRU can use 
> other query languages and CQL may be invoked by other protocols, but they 
> are generally oriented towards being used together.   But since SRU may be 
> used with a query language that might not have sort capability, the TC felt 
> it necessary to include sorting as part of the protocol. Conversely since 
> CQL may be used by a protocol that doesn't support sorting, similarly CQL 
> should support sorting. There is a section in the draft standard that 
> discusses what to do if a request has conflicting sort specifications.
>
> --Ray
>
>