On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 23:05 -0500, Ross Singer wrote:
> Well, no. From:
> id Identifies the entry using a *universally unique and permanent
> URI*. Suggestions on how to make a good id can be found here. Two
> entries in a feed can have the same value for id if they represent the
> same entry at different points in time.
> So, what this means is that every search result would have a unique
> and permanent URI, to which I say "hallelujah!" but you might not be
> as overjoyed.
While it may make sense for every record within the resource to have a
unique identifier, results need to be distinguished from records (I'm
elaborating here on something Ed Z. said earlier in the discussion.)
A search result is a product of the query used to generate it. While it
should contain the record data, it may necessary for it to contain other
information specific to the query (e.g. relevance measures, pointers to
words within the record that matched the query etc.) These extra pieces
of information are lost if the record is later retrieved again simply
using its identifier.
Also you can't simply use the query, and the result's position within
the set as an id unless you can guarantee that no records have been
added/removed from the database between the initial search, and
John Harrison <[log in to unmask]>
University of Liverpool Library