On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Mike Taylor wrote:
> > From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>

> > > >   dc.title any/rel.algorithm=cori "fish squirrel"
> > The other option is to have everyone define their own algorithms in
> > their own context sets and not have a single relevancy set at all.
> > Which isn't as bad as it might be, but isn't very appealing either.
> It appeals to me.  Isn't this a perfect example of the kind of
> scenario we invented URI-identification of context sets to solve?

Fair enough.  That's where I started out (rel.cori) but then moved
thinking to be more generic as above.
But as you say, it /is/ the same as identifying existing indexes and other
parts of context sets.

> > > What am I missing?  Specifically, what new and useful action could
> > > a ZeeRex-configured client automatically take if we added the
> > > information you're talking about?

> > Without the explain section, how can you know which relevancy
> > algorithms are supported at all without just trying them?

>   <supports type="relationModifier">rel.algorithm</supports>
>   <supports type="booleanModifier">rel.combine</supports>

This would just say that you support algorithm and combine, but not which
of the values for those modifiers you support.
But in the rel.cori mode, that's not a problem either.

I'll write up a draft context set for relevancy today and post a URL for
discussion.

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/