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
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. 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/