I agree with the anchor proposal.
I disagree about the whole index proposal. I think there should just be a
String index and a Words index. I think a search term consisting of a list
of words should default to implicit adjacency, but that servers should be
able to announce through Explain if they do something else.
Yes, it might be nice if the client had finer control over what happens on
the server, but SRW is supposed to be easier than Z39.50, not harder. I
don't think we lose any functionality by limiting this convenience feature.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 8:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: masking
> Firt Word in Field in a word based index means that we need anchoring
> characters. This means we do not need word masking as it's already
> masked because of the semantics of the index. This would need to be
> dc.titleAdjacentWords in the latest revision of indexes.
> I suggest ^ and $ as recognisable anchoring characters.
> At first I agreed with Rob K about the confusion between semantics and
> user interface, but we already do that (eg title vs titleWord) If it
> doesn't make sense in Chinese, then there's no need to list
> that index in
> your set of defined indexes -- there's no need to support
> every dc index.
> It allows servers and clients to chose the appropriate operator for
> multiple word terms, as opposed to hoping for the best.
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> > I'm going to re-write the dc index document based
> > on what I think best represents the collective
> > thinking. So I need to try to focus on specific
> > questions. Right now I have the following:
> > 1. Do we want "anchor" characters in the cql
> > syntax, or is "anchored" (left and right) the
> > default?
> > 2. If anchored is the default, do we want mask on
> > word boundaries? (expansion/interpretation 1 and
> > 3)
> > 3. If so, do we need the word masking character
> > "|" that's been proposed or can I withdraw that
> > proposal?
> > 4.AdjacentWords, AllTheseWords, AnyOfTheseWords
> > are format/structure values. Shouldn't they be
> > expansion/interpretation?
> > --Ray
> ,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
> ,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
> ,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
> ,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet:
> liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
> ____/:::::::::::::. WWW:
> I L L U M I N A T I