Rob wrote:
>Objection.

>We use relevance all the time for full text searches.  Not so useful for
>Marc records, but we're not talking about marc records, we're talking
>about XML records.  There should IMO be a way to say that the results
>should be relevance ranked.

I agree fully that relevance is important (even for marc records). I spent
the last 3 years advocating relevance sorting for bibliographic queries.

On the other hand there is more than one way to sort sets. Sets can be
sorted alphabetically, by relevance, by database entry, by year of
publication or any other random group of marc fields. Nobody (?) requires
the query language to include all the other ways to sort sets.

It is much simpler to make sorting an "out of band" attribute.

for example (in URL syntax): sort=yop&query=bible

Rob Koopman