> Robert Sanderson wrote:
> > I suggest an explain tag per index which records if it supports proximity
> > or not. If it doesn't then a multi word search term would be treated as
> > implicit AND as oposed to implicit PROX.
> That just seems to me too complicated and too confusing. If you want an
> "all these words" search, there's a very straightforward way, using AA: the
> utility set format/structure attribute "allTheseWords". We would define an
> index "dc.titleAllWords" as such, in terms of AA only, that is, with no
> bib-1 mapping. If you need to map it to bib-1, you do a boolean search.
It's not that I want these searches, they can all be done with boolean
operators. I don't like the default of Proximity, as it raises the barrier
to entry. Perhaps Prox is the best, but if someone doesn't want to
implement it because they're sitting in front of a system that doesn't
support it, then what do they do when they get multiple words in the term?
They should be able to say 'I can't do proximity' and this needs to be in
Explain, per index.
There are also indexes where multiple terms as proximity makes no sense
what so ever, because they occur only once in a record for example. If I
have an ISBN index, and someone sends multiple terms, I'm certainly not
going to try and do a Proximity search with it as that is nonsensical.
Prox as a default makes sense for things like title nad description and
author, but not everything.
,'/:. 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