LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  December 2004

ZNG December 2004

Subject:

Re: Adlib Base profile

From:

Dr Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:58:58 +0000

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (125 lines)

>> - The meta-index cql.anywhere searches all indexes defined in the
>>   Adlib database at once. It does not search all indexes in all
>>   context sets, as the CQL context set suggests. This might be a slow
>>   search if there are a lot of indexes.
>
> It is at best inadvisable, and probably just wrong, to _re_define the
> meaning of an existing index like this -- especially such a core one.

I think that's exactly what cql.anywhere means.  Search all indexes that
you know about, but you can't be expected to search indexes that you don't
know about.

Which is (thankfully, for once) exactly how it's defined:

This means "search all indexes from all context sets you know".

>> - The adlib.record meta-index searches the whole record. The
>>   operator doesn't matter.  This is a slow search since no index can
>>   be used.
>
> Perhaps we should consider adding cql.record for whole-record
> searching (where supported).

I'm not sure what exactly happens here. Is it:

(a)  You send some terms and it searches the entire record.  (And how is
this different to cql.anywhere in practice?)

(b)  You send the entire record as a term, and it returns the entire
record back to you if it finds it. (seems ... odd)

> You can't really say "the operator doesn't matter" as this is
> overriding established semantics of CQL and the CQL context set.  It
> would be much better to say "the operator must be '=': all others will
> be rejected".
> (And by the way, it is conventional in CQL to talk of "relations"
> rather then "operators".  Unless you have a compelling reason, you
> should probably stick to this convention.)

Agreed.


> There really should be a thesaurus-use context set defined outside of
> Adlib, for use in this and other profiles (or the relevant elements
> should be added to the existing Zthes context set).  We actually
> started this process a month or two back, but got sidetracks -- or
> maybe mired in excess complexity.

Yes.

>> - The 'encloses' and 'within' operators are implemented using the
>>   Adlib WHEN operator. Some examples:
>>   'term encloses "2000 2004"' translates to 'term >= 2000 WHEN term
>>   <= 2004'
>>   'term within "2001 2005"' translates to 'term > 2001 WHEN term <
>>   2005'.


Wait wait...
Here are some uses for within and enclose:

dc.date within "2000 2004"
-> Does the record contain a date between (inclusive) 2000 and 2004

foo.rangeOfDates encloses 2002
-> Does 2002 fall within (inclusive) the date range in the record.

For example:
<record>
<date>2002</date>
</record>

would match the within query.

and

<record>
<dateRange>2000 2004</dateRange>
</record>

would match the encloses query.

(Hopefully this is how your internal queries work)

>>   These two indexes can be be reflected using two separate CQL
>>   indexes. It is not possible to use modifiers to switch from one to
>>   the other.
> Why not?  It seems an eminently sensible way of expressing the
> difference.

Yep.  This is, for example, how title is commonly implemented.

> No, we all agreed that "exact" does _not_ imply unmasked.

But it does imply anchored.

>> + operator '=': implied modifiers are cql.masked and either cql.word
>>     or cql.string, depending on the index type. This cannot be seen
>>     in the explain information but must be described in a profile.
>
> This is _not_ what "=" means in CQL.  It means that the term is
> word-structured, irrespective of the index being searched, unless
> overridden by a relation modifier.

I disagree, Mike.  It means, currently, exact equality, but does not say
how equality is to be determined.
Unless the term is a list (which may be a singleton) of words.

>>   + adlib.record meta-index: implied operators are cql.string and
>>     cql.unmasked.
> There is nothing in CQL that allows you to infer different
> term-structure and masking semantics from an index name.

So you have to treat dc.date = "2004-12-25" as a word? or a string?
Sure you can do this.

Rob

       ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
   ,'--/::(@)::.      Dept. of Computer Science, Room 805
,'---/::::::::::.    University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::.  L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
I L L U M I N A T I

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager