 |
 |
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 > >