Its not "my spec" its "our spec"--- and something for more then just us,

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:41:20 -0400, Jonathan Rochkind wrote
> But one would not neccesarily expect any arbitrary clients to 
> understanding something in "extraTermData".  It does mean that the 
> functionality "goes away" from the spec, although "extraTermData" 

What "goes away" is the requirement that ALL clients implement them.

> can still be used for two coordinating installations to provide it 
> beyond what's actually in the spec. If I understand properly. I may not.
> 
> I still don't really understand why people want to get rid of it, it 
> seems obviously useful to me. But, hey, it's your spec.

As always--- and particularly here given the taste of Z39.50 still
lingering--- the question are:
1) Are they being (actively) used (by anyone)?
2) If nearly no one is using the feature is there a strong business case
against a depreciation (such as features that nobody uses in projects but come
up in pitches)?
3) Any technical advantage to depreciate?

Right now I don't think we'd want to force all clients to understand what I've
suggested (also hint and help, response and term). extraData has the great
feature that clients can but don't have to understand them. Without this
alternative display, hint or help, even when a server might provide them I
suggest a client can still go a lot. Since these can be defined by profiles..
its not "private".. and a a later time it can be moved in the standard core.

If DisplayTerm remains we must also change its semantics to reflect the shift
in what the value of a term is.. and in so.. I suspect we're also slightly
changing its use.. And if DisplayTerm is anyway not being actively used..
instead of trying to "fix it".. depreciate it.. and let a new "approach"
develop.. through extraData.


 
> Edward C. Zimmermann wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:53:19 +0100, John Harrison wrote
> >
> >   
> >> There would seem to be a clear use-case for displayTerm, although I
> >> confess I've never figured out how to implement it tidily in our search
> >> engine.
> >>     
> >
> > I would like to suggest that depreciation does not mean that the
> > "functionality" would go away but could still live on in an optional
> > <extraTermData> which can contain in addition to an element for alternative
> > display (the effective functionality of DisplayTerm but with a slightly
> > different semantics) also hint and help. These could be important for some
> > barrier free applications. 
> >
> > Examples of where hint and help are useful are plenty. My suggestion to have
> > these in the response and in the terms... [Note: ***response*** too!]
> >
> > This seems more consistent and logical to me.. fits well in an alignment of
> > Facet and Scan.. and better reflects the consequences of recasting the
> > semantics for value away from "exactly as it appears in the index" (which I
> > never followed) towards what we've called "anything goes" and "server knows
> > best" (which is probably what many of us have been doing the whole time). 
> >
> >   
> >> At first I was horrified by the "anything goes" proposal for the search
> >> term value, but then I read on a little further and came round to the
> >> idea. However I would tighten up the definition a little to something
> >> more like:
> >>
> >> "A term that when used in a search of the same index, produces an
> >> appropriate search response, consisting of 1 or more record(s). 
> >> Where a numberOfRecords is also supplied by the scan response, the subsequent
> >> search should return the specified number of records."
> >>     
> >
> > Was that not the implicit intent of the "exactly as it appears in the index"
> > following an assumption that terms in an index are terms in records that can
> > be found whence a term "exactly as it appears in the index" will return 1 or
> > more records?
> > Technically being in the index does not guarantee that a search response will
> > return any records but we've come to assume that these terms when used as a
> > search term would produce an appropriate search response consisting of 1 or
> > more records--- which btw. a number of systems don't always deliver (and since
> > my engine has a facility for search time stop words I can well see use cases
> > of my own engine that don't deliver). Effectively its been "what the server
> > that supplied the term deems appropriate" and we've had wishing thinking that
> > the server would deem appropriate a search response, consisting of 1 or more
> > record(s). I'd like to leave this ambiguity in.
> >
> > I think the important issue here is that the term is supplied by the server
> > and the server provides a search response as it intended. It might be the
> > desire of the operator of the search server to provide service that fulfill
> > their customers' expectations but these issues are "tar pits" outside the
> > realm of protocols. 
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> >> IMO this definition should also apply to term in facets, due to their
> >> similarities in use.
> >>     
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> >   
> >> All the best,
> >> John
> >>
> >> -- 
> >>               '.    ,'.         John Harrison
> >>              '  `  '  '         University of Liverpool
> >>  c h e s h i r e  |  3          e: [log in to unmask]
> >>                   v             w: www.cheshire3.org
> >>               `-..;.'           t: 0151 7954271
> >>                 ..,     (c)
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:04 +0100, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> >>     
> >>> The utility of displayTerm (vs. actualTerm) was illustrated  many years ago
> >>> during early implementation of Z39.50 browse/scan.  You'd have to look up
> >>> that discussion in the archive, but basically, an implementation had an
> >>> index where terms where not very user friendly but were much more efficient
> >>> for searching than their corresponding displayTerms. I don't recall who the
> >>> implementer was, but there was a real implementation.
> >>>
> >>> Of course this was for scan (or "browse" as we called it in Z39.50), not for
> >>> facets.
> >>>
> >>> My position on this is that scan and facets should be aligned in this
> >>> matter. That is, they should both have displayTerm or neither should. That
> >>> means the OASIS committee should consider depricating displayTerm from Scan.
> >>> I don't say it SHOULD DEPRICATE it, it should consult with Z39.50 and SRU
> >>> implementors to see if displayTerm is still necessary/useful. That was the
> >>> purpose of Ralph's posting to the SRU list. If it seems that displayTerm
> >>> should remain in scan then I think it should be added to the facet response.
> >>> If it seems nobody cares whether it is retained or not then it should be
> >>> dropped from scan 2.0 (and not added to the facet response).
> >>>
> >>> --Ray
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors
> >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LeVan,Ralph
> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:07 PM
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> Subject: Re: <displayTerm> as a subelement of <term> in Scan responses
> >>>
> >>> Pretty much all the conversation on that list has been about changes to the
> >>> facet response and the only controversial change is my desire to add a
> >>> displayTerm.
> >>>
> >>> Here's a pointer to the achive for this month:
> >>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/search-ws-comment/201010/threads.ht
> >>> ml
> >>>
> >>> Ralph
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors 
> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 1:50 PM
> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>> Subject: Re: <displayTerm> as a subelement of <term> in Scan responses
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you link to the thread in the archives of the list, or is it (like 
> >>>> most of our lists, for no good reason) private?
> >>>>
> >>>> I am curious what the arguments against it are. It seems like a good 
> >>>> idea to me?
> >>>>
> >>>> But I do not use Scan at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> I do not use facetting through SRU at all, but if/when I do, I believe 
> >>>> I'd use displayTerm if it was there.
> >>>>
> >>>> LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> >>>>         
> >>>>> There's an overlong debate going on in the search-ws-comment mail
> >>>>>           
> >>> list
> >>>       
> >>>> ([log in to unmask]<mailto:search-ws-
> >>>> [log in to unmask]>) about including a displayTerm as a 
> >>>> subelement of <term> in a facet response.  The feelings against
> >>>>         
> >>> including
> >>>       
> >>>> displayTerm are so strong as to suggest that it should be deprecated
> >>>>         
> >>> in Scan.
> >>>       
> >>>>> I've been the one arguing for the inclusion of displayTerm for
> >>>>>           
> >>> consistency with
> >>>       
> >>>> Scan, but I don't use it myself in any of my implementations.  So, my
> >>>>         
> >>> question for
> >>>       
> >>>> you all is: do any of you actually use the displayTerm in your
> >>>>         
> >>> responses?  If not,
> >>>       
> >>>> I'll happily drop my arguments.  If so, can you provide a good use
> >>>>         
> >>> case?
> >>>       
> >>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ralph
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>           
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
> > Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts
> > Office Leo (R&D):
> >   Leopoldstrasse 53-55, D-80802 Munich,
> >   Federal Republic of Germany
> > http://www.nonmonotonic.net
> > Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967
> >


--

Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts
Office Leo (R&D):
  Leopoldstrasse 53-55, D-80802 Munich,
  Federal Republic of Germany
http://www.nonmonotonic.net
Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967