All other points fixed in document.


> > 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.

I mean by this the case when you get a query:

dc.title any/relevant foo and/rel.sum dc.description any/rel.lr bar

The first clause says 'use a relevancy ranking algorithm please' and the
second explicitly says 'use logistic regression'.  So the server gets to
choose which algorithm for the first search clause, as opposed to if it
wasn't there at all, when it's just a boolean query and each record will
have a weight of 1.0

> > 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?

Yes.

From the CQL rules:
-----
  11. Case Insensitive
      All parts of CQL are case insensitive apart from user supplied
search terms, which may or may not be case sensitive. 'OR','or', 'Or' and
'oR' are all the same boolean operator, just as 'dc.title', 'DC.Title' and
'dC.TiTLe' are all the same context set plus index name.
-----


> What about TF-IDF?

Term Frequency/Inverse Document Frequency?

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/