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