LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


ZNG@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


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  November 2005

ZNG November 2005

Subject:

Re: Proximity search and Brahmagupta

From:

"Oldroyd, Bill" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:34:03 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (85 lines)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> Sent: 29 November 2005 16:59
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Proximity search and Brahmagupta
> 
> >> What does a distance=10 mean for some arbitrary element? How do we
> >> view order or direction?
> 
> >I've built systems with proximity across elements.  Imagine this
case:
> ><rec>
> >  <author>C. J. Cherryh</author>
> >  <title>Brother at Arms</title>
> >  </rec>
> 
> >I'm looking to see if Cherryh wrote "Brother at Arms".  The search
is:
> >Author=cherryh prox/unit=element/distance=1 title="brother at arms"
> >That means that the author must occur in the element immediately
> >preceeding the title.
 
> I agree with Ralph, and have done the same thing.  While we dont have
a
> notion of an element tree (ala XML) in CQL, I would say that notion of
> different elements enclosing data is essential, and that you might
wish
> to expose their ordering as in the case above.
> 
> Which is not to say that I want an element tree, I dont think that's a
> role that CQL should try to take.  It's also not to say that I think
> that element proximity is important for everyone to implement or even
> worry about ... the number of cases when it's actually useful is very
> limited.  The only reason that it has come up in this discussion is
> because of the use of CQL to search *syntax* rather than *semantics*.
> (So I blame Mike and Matthew! :) )

It would be nice if CQL did address this issue.

As more complex digital objects are developed we will want to provide
more complex searches. For example :

A database of illuminations from illuminated manuscripts has 4 entities,
the image, the illumination, the manuscript and the bound volume
containing the manuscript. It is legitimate to search for say :

	A type of image
	for an illumination with a particular subject
	from manuscripts from a particular date
	which originate from a particular provenance 

(provenance is a characteristic of the volume in this data model) 

Also using FRBR might we not wish to search something along the lines of


	Find expressions with
	manifestation of date x to y
	for work of title y

To me this suggests the search language requires some way of identifying
the relationship between different entities in the data model. We avoid
this with current "flat" file systems, but we will need it in the
future.

Bill

**************************************************************************
 
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook
 
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFI - enabled
 
**************************************************************************
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. 
 
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. 
 
**************************************************************************

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