On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 23:05:10 -0500, Ross Singer wrote
> On Dec 3, 2007 4:24 PM, Dr R. Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Amen.
> > Also, the semantics of what they're actually describing aren't the
> > clearest.
> > The <id> element, for example, is not dc:identifier for the object
> > described in the data, it's an arbitrary id of that particular entry in
> > that particular feed. (As I understand it)
> > Which makes perfect sense in an ATOM feed. And is totally meaningless in
> > SRU.
> 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.
In Atom its important but (as the case with most feeds Atom or RSS) not very
> So, what this means is that every search result would have a unique
In some systems our ids were generated from the system process-id. This
proved reliable, persistant, sufficiently long lived and pragmatic but not
permanent (and not intended to be). Designed to be able to live without access
to the index they would be the result a given query at a moment in time. Their
main use was for named result sets and in web interfaces for paging. Other
objects would track the state of the index to be able to recycle some results
as fast cached. These, by contrast, were never de-coupled from the index and
to the outside world NEVER persistant but extremely volatile.
We also have persistent URIs-- for example in IBU News--- that do nothing
more than run queries against a defined target (lets canned queries become
news feeds). Here the URI is persistent but the content (result) is in flux.
> and permanent URI, to which I say "hallelujah!" but you might not be
> as overjoyed.
A result of a search is composed of two variables
- the query
- the state of the target (which can be in flux)
Permanent result sets?
How can we have a permanent result against a target that's in flux?
Since we don't want to save these sets **forever** we can provide
permanent response to persistent URIs that produce an error response--
no need to keep stale stuff around.
> It might be a lot of work, but it's by no stretch of the imagination
There is no problem making an Id..but of what?
Unique set or non-unique query id as the basis?
Would we not maybe want a persistent URI for the query and ignore the state
as is the case sometimes with updated news stories. Different sets with the
same Id.. Id really just being a signature for the search (if not the
search as URI).
Before we start to demand this we need to be very clear in our specifications
what the Id means to us. If we want this we should specify what it so that
it can have value!
Edward C. Zimmermann, Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich