> From: "Scherle, Ryan E" <[log in to unmask]>
> A while back, Rob Sanderson and Ray Denenberg had a conversation (see
> below) about keyword searching and the usefulness of the proposed
> excludeOriginInfo modifier on the cql.anywhere index.
>
> In my opinion, the server should be the one making the decision on which
> fields/indexes are inluded in a keyword search.

Yes, it was never intended (nor contemplated) that these would be dynamic
indexes the client can construct to indicate where to search.  The idea is
that the sever advertises what keyword indexes it supports. There might be a
handful of commonly named keyword indexes and the server would support a
subset.

> If cql.anywhere truly means "any field in the data", including fields
> that wouldn't normally be searchable (like originInfo and notes), it is
> guaranteed to produce a lot of noise. However, the current CQL context
> set says it means "search all indexes", which I take to mean "search all
> information that would normally be searchable",

Yes, it may be poorly named but that's what it means.
http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/cql/cql-context-set.html : "search all
indexes from all context sets you know".   Which probably should instead
say: ""search all indexes you support, from all context sets you know".

> The bottom line, then is that if we define cql.anywhere properly, we
> don't need the excludeOriginInfo modifier.

But what if originInfo is searchable?  (Or partially searchable, e.g.
placeOfOrigin is searchable.)

--Ray