Hurray!

I'd weaken the suggestion about using "Word" in the index name to be a good
practice, but definitely not a requirement.  User interfaces will pick names
that are useful to their audiences.  Interface designers should have access
to the Structure attributes to determine if structure is Word or String.

By the way, what are we going to do about getting a String structure
attribute?  And an Adjacency Word List.

Ralph

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 8:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: indexes and masking


> So, how am I supposed to know if a string index is to be searched or a
word
> index?  You seem to be inferring it from the truncation characters.  Is
> Title="word" a word search or a complete title search?

Complete title search. A word search on Title would be "|word|"

> Just as importantly, when we move to support Scan, we aren't going to have
> any truncation characters to help.  So when I scan on Title="word", do I
> expect to see single words from titles come back or entire titles?

Yes.  This is, IMO, the killer argument against combining Title and
TitleWord (etc)  I'm now convinced that we should leave the two separate
as there's no resolution to this problem apart from having multiple
named indexes.

I'd like to further propose that the use of *Word as index names be
formally written in to the spec as an identifier that the structure of
the data in the index is word based not string based.

Rob

--
      ,'/:.          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:  http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I