Hi Francois,
My point was that there are two languages being called CQL, one appears to
have come fro the z3950 community and the second being the CSW flavour. Their
syntax and structure appears to differ quite a bit. As I don't have a great
deal of experience with geospatial systems I was hoping that someone more
experienced than I would comment on the discrepancy.
When testing the GeoNetwork CSW client I found that I was getting parse
exceptions from the Zing parser, it didn't recognise the keyword 'like'. The
LIKE keyword is part of the CSW CQL language but is missing from Zing CQL.
Given that GeoNetwork is the reference version of CSW it probably should
follow that the CQL version shipped should match that defined in the CSW
standard.
If the GeoTools parser parses CSW CQL and has a licence compatible with
GeoNetwork then I'd say go for it!
Cheers,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Francois-Xavier Prunayre
[mailto:francois-xavier.prunayre@anonymised.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 October 2008 8:57
To: Davies Stephen
Cc: geonetwork-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [GeoNetwork-devel] Is it me or is the CSW common querylanguage
just wrong in 2.2.0? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Stephen,
On jeu, 2008-08-07 at 16:33 +1000, Stephen.Davies@anonymised.com wrote:
CQLParser is in the org.z3950.zing.cql package. Google takes me to
http://zing.z3950.org/cql/intro.html . It may be just me but Zing CQL
IS NOT the same as OGC CQL as specified by CSW 2.0.1 (OGC 04-021r3).
As mentionned by Andrea some times ago
http://www.nabble.com/CSW-2.0.1-test-server-td8975277.html#a8975277
"the CQL implementation is far from good (the library
we use it pretty naive). This has some limitations (for example you
cannot search words that contain spaces)."
Maybe we should plan for migration to GeoTools CQL parser instead of the
zing one ?
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTDOC/02+CQL+Utility+Class
Then we could plan to convert FE to Lucene query for filter and CQL to
FE to Lucene query for CQL ?
Any thougths ?
Francois