> > Index Names are supposed to represent the attribute combinations in
> > Z39.50. So we can say 'titleWord' not (1=4, 3=3, 4=6)
> Actually, 'titleWord' would represent (1=4, 3=3, 4=2, and 6=1).
Ooops, yes :)
> But you're correct, we're loading these names with some attribute
Which implies at least some semantic overload of the names. So we need to
draw a line and so 'no more than this'.
> > I think this is an acceptable level of semantics in index names, so long
> > as there is a recommendation to use one particular naming scheme (foo,
> > fooWord) Obviously this can be ignored, but so can attribute
> Or, searches other than "foo", "fooWord" would generate diagnostics.
Yup. What I was meaning to say was that people can still call them
'fooString' or 'exactFoo' and mean what I mean when I say just 'foo'.
Of course, this is forgetting that DC and Bath are predetermined sets with
predetermined semantics. Obviously all bath indexsets will use the same
names. BUT it would be nice IMO to recommend a particular naming scheme
for /all/ sets to keep it easy to understand what the individual set
author had in mind.
> > 'First' or any other description of the location of the term should be
> > part of the query language, not the name of the index. And as we can
> There's no need for it to be in the index _name_, but don't you think
> it's much clearer if we state that left anchored is assumed for the
> "foo" indexes?
In Explain, per index and/or per server, to say what the default anchoring
> > Why even fooWord? We can express it with an unanchored search with
> > spaces.
> > eg: foo="? term *"
> I think there will be server differences even with the left-anchored
> searches. Some may not include initial articles; some will.
What I meant to get at was that we don't even /need/ titleWord if we have
an unanchored, right truncating search on the exact title. Probably what
we'll all do is just map these searches to our keyword indexes, but then
there isn't any overloading of index names to describe the semantics of
the searches against them.
title="? word *"
is the same as
Right? So should we get rid of titleWord as well?
I personally don't think titleWord is such a big deal, but it is the
outcome of 'don't overload names with semantics'?
,'/:. 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