As we’ve discussed earlier, I think that individual cite keys must be
enclosed by anchors to provide for exact field matches if the 'any’
relation is used:
"^Smith1992a^ ^Smith1992b^ ^Mitchell1995a^"
I don’t think it makes any difference, actually.
any, all and adjacency are word relations. If all you have in the field
is a single word, then it will act like an exact equality relation.
True, but what if you’re query contains cite keys that would match
multiple keys in your database, like:
any “Smith1992 Mitchell1995”
and you have following cite keys in your database:
Without the anchors, the query keys won’t be unique. That’s a serious
problem since we can’t (and shouldn’t) make assumptions about other
people’s cite key syntax.
If you have a cite key with a space, you’ll still end up with
potentialy incorrect results from:
foo all "^the first key^ ^a second key^"
foo = ^the and foo = first and foo = key^ and foo = ^a and
foo = second and foo = key^
Ok, I see. Btw, for me it’s one of the most confusing things in CQL
that spaces do mean completely different things depending on context
and which relation is used. That’s a concept that’s pretty different
from all other search languages I’ve come across, so far and I find
it hard to grasp. Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s bad ;-), it’s
just easy to get trapped by that.
I think that when querying for multiple cite keys we should not use
the ‘any’ relation then but multiple ‘exact’ statements connected
with ‘and’ instead. (which isn’t as smart as using ‘any “…”’ since
it gets pretty wordy :-/)
This problem was also the reason why I was asking for an 'anyexact’
relation which would ease things for us quite a bit, IMHO.