On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Mike Taylor wrote:
> > From: Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>

> > The point [of the document we're all arguing about] is that there
> > will be a way to express the intended semantics of the index.)

> I honestly do not imagine that one single person in the whole world
> will look at this document in order to understand the semantics of a
> CQL qualifier.
> It ain't gonna happen.  Every single developer will just go, "Oh,
> titleWord: that means a word in the title".

> > > 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.
>
> Here, at least, I agree!  I strongly oppose this tendency to bundle
> more and more stuff into explain.  If we learned one less from Explain
> Classic (we did, didn't we?  _Please_ say we did! :-) it is surely
> that if it's too complicated, no-one will implement it.  Let's not
> fall into that trap again.

If we have to write documents in the AA completely describing the
semantics of each index, then one, optional <setting> tag in an index
definition that can have about 6 or 7 other supports/default/setting tags
in it isn't going to break the camel's back.

<index>
  <title>Date (ISO8661)</title>
  <map>
    <name>date</date>
  </map>
  <initInfo>
    <setting type="multipleTermRelation">OR</setting>
  </initInfo>
</index>

is hardly complex, compared to having to define all of the attributes.

I'll drop it, if we can drop the requirement for the attributes second
level explain document, deal? :)

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