> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:56:13 +0100
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
> > > If the 'relevant' relation modifier from the cql context set is
> > > given, but no named algorithm, then the server should continue to
> > > use the basic semantics -- the server may decide which algorithm to
> > > use.
> > Isn't that a contradiction?
> No? That's the semantics of cql.relevant, as per the CQL context set.
Oh, I see what you mean: "the server should continue to use the basic
semantics, _that is_ the server may decide ..." Gotcha. I thought
you were making two different statements.
> > > Also, please note that all aspects of context sets are case
> > > insensitive. "rel.CORI" and "rel.cori" are to be treated the same
> > Is this generally true of CQL indexes and modifiers?
Good. Better say that explicitly in the document, then: "As with all
CQL relation modifiers and boolean modifiers ..."
> > What about TF-IDF?
> Term Frequency/Inverse Document Frequency?
That's the one. Isn't it an important relevance algorithm?