Eliot - Our CQL Index Naming Convention
http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/index-naming.html basic rule 3 says
"When contemplating the creation of an index name, the creator should
attempt to determine if a suitable index name already exists (in the same or
another context set), and if so, use it rather than creating a new index
name." And you pretty much wrote that rule. How does that square with what
you say below? Do we need to qualify that rule? (And I realize it's not a
strict "rule" just a guideline.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eliot Christian" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:07 AM
Subject: multiple index names with same semantics
> At 07:15 AM 1/11/2005, Mike Taylor wrote:
> >Also for the record (thank, Rob!) Eliot is incorrect in supposing that
> >I think it's OK for CQL indexes in different context sets to have
> >different names. Far from it: as a matter of Good CQL Citizenship,
> >anyone defining a new context set should take pains to ensure that
> >they do not duplicate the semantics of an index already defined
> >elsewhere. [...]
> Sorry, I guess I misunderstood Mike's position in a prior
> exchange. I will try to present the "multiple index names
> with same semantics" issue as I see it.
> I think it is reasonable to have CQL accommodate current
> practice in the naming of indexes for existing communities
> of practice. This has already been done to some extent
> with bibliographic terminology in anticipation that CQL
> will be used by the library community. But, the library
> community is only one among a great number of communities
> that ought to use CQL.
> If CQL is to also be used for the searching of news stories,
> we can anticipate that there will be a "news context set"
> wherein the index named "byline" would have the same semantics
> as "author" and the index named "headline" would have the same
> semantics as "title". If CQL had a rule that prohibited more
> than one index name for the same semantics, the result would
> surely be that the news context set author/creator would insert
> some trivial difference in the semantics so that the community
> can write CQL using the index names that are natural for them.
> Then, CQL would have encouraged an artificial barrier to search
> interoperability: two indexes that ought to have been the same
> for almost all search purposes have been made to seem different.
> Obviously, any search server supporting CQL must provide some
> kind of semantic mapping function to relate named indexes to
> particular pieces of content. It is expected that such a
> function will often map multiple index names to the same
> content. Since only the human who sets up that mapping is
> responsible for how "good" is the semantic match, I don't
> see why we would want to have CQL playing "semantics cop".