Rob, two editorial comments:
1. "The default ordering of a result set is left up to the server, including
no ordering whatsoever"
I suggest
".... including random order". (I don't believe there is such a thing as
"no ordering whatsoever".)
2. "This is addressed in SRW through the use of the sortKeys parameter,
which can be used to sort a result set once it has been created. However,
for sophisticated relevance based ranking, this needs to be part of the
query itself so that boolean operands might be treated differently, and to
request specific methods to combine the results of evaluating each operand."
I suggest (something like):
"This is addressed in SRW through the use of the sortKeys parameter,
however, for sophisticated relevance based ranking, boolean operands might
be treated differently, and specific methods might be requested to combine
the results of evaluating each operand."
I.e. remove the emphasis on "being part of the query" since this also
applies (perhaps to a lesser extent) to sort.
--Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:52 PM
Subject: Relevance Ranking Context Set
> First draft is available at:
> http://srw.cheshire3.org/contextSets/rel/
>
> Comments, as always, are sought :)
>
> 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/
|