Re: CAP draft 07 issues - sections 3 and 4

[Alan Davies <aland@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:24 PM 25/03/2002 -0700, Doug Royer wrote:
> > It should also be noted that only 1 of the above queries could be
> > represented if the clauses were 'tossed' (we would have to choose
> > whether the two references to ATTENDEE in the first two examples
> > would refer to the same or different properties).
>
> In what case would 'two' ATTENDEEs be from the 'same' property?
> ATTENDEE is a single valued, multiinstance property.

That's not what I was trying to say.

Perhaps an example would help; consider the following
snippet from an iCalendar object:

    BEGIN:VEVENT
    [...]
    ATTENDEE;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION:foo@xxxxxxxxxxx
    ATTENDEE;PARTSTAT=ACCEPTED:bar@xxxxxxxxxxx
    END:VEVENT

My point is that it's not clear whether the following query
would match that VEVENT or not:

    SELECT * FROM VEVENT WHERE
        ATTENDEE = "foo@xxxxxxxxxxx"
        AND PARAM(ATTENDEE, PARTSTAT) = ACCEPTED

You see the VEVENT contains an ATTENDEE whose value matches
"foo@xxxxxxxxxxx", and an ATTENDEE whose PARTSTAT matches
"ACCEPTED", so it would be considered a match if each time
the ATTENDEE property was used, it was taken to mean
"any ATTENDEE of the VEVENT".

--Alan