On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Robert Sanderson wrote:

> > > '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
> is?

Useful information in Explain.  I think it should also be mentioned in
our spec.

> 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
>         titleWord="word"
>
> Right?  So should we get rid of titleWord as well?

Let's not!
I prefer "titleWord" to the use of title="? word *"
It's much easier to associate "titleWord" with the keyword
index.

>
> I personally don't think titleWord is such a big deal, but it is the
> outcome of 'don't overload names with semantics'?

Let's not _overload_, but let's keep _some_ load.  :-)
Larry

------------------------------------------------------------
Larry E. Dixson                    Internet:    [log in to unmask]
Network Development and MARC
   Standards Office, LM639
Library of Congress                Telephone: (202) 707-5807
Washington, D.C.  20540-4402       Fax:       (202) 707-0115