On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Mike Taylor wrote:
> > From: Marc Cromme <[log in to unmask]>

> > 1) an by the appropriate relevance ranking algorithm ordered response
> Yes.

> > 2) an indication of the actual relevance value of every record in
> > the hit set (this needs a new SOAP tag in SRW)
> No SRW changes are needed for this: there are already two mechanisms
> for including this information.  One is just to add it to the returned
> > 3) an indication of the possible range of relevance values for each
> > server implementation - I can not meaningful merge ranked hit sets
> This is best transferred as an extraResponseData packet.


And I refer to it in the document in the last line of the introduction :)
When I update my simple record metadata schema, I'll include the relevancy
related elements in it, and turn it into an extraRecordData extension.

At which point I'll be seeking some more comments.

Rob


--
      ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I  L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/