> Recall how this was resolved in classic Z39.50. (About 8-9 years ago.)
> Relevance was treated as a relation attribute (as in "bib1.any relevantTo
> Term"). Nobody has ever claimed any implied semantics that this gives you a
> result set sorted on relevance, as this would break the Z39.50 model, only that
> the results are relevant (where relevance is determined by the server) and the
> result set could potentially be in random order with respect to relevance. But
> as a practical matter, those systems that supported relevance ranking all
> supplied results in relevance order. So it was a moot point.
> Is that good enough?
Fine by me. The original discussion was predicated on the idea that
relevance was really just a sort operation.
Just so long as there is some way to get relevance ranked results :)
,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I