LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


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 2008

ZNG November 2008

Subject:

Re: result size precision

From:

"Edward C. Zimmermann" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:14:03 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (88 lines)

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:13:28 -0500, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote 
> Based on discussion the past several years over the topic of result size
precision, the OASIS Search Web Service Technical Committee proposes to define
in SRU 2.0 an optional response element <resultSizePrecision> whose definition
would be something like: 
>   

Confidence as a 0-100 integer does not makes any sense. What does 30 mean?
30% confidence? Confidence in what? What does 10% or 90% mean? We can
debate what these numbers mean in statistics or in empirical data quality
but here its screaming "wrong model".

Servers don't have typically any kind of "confidence" beyond "know" and
"don't know". Between these two poles its more or less "what I think at
this moment but I know its probably not right but could be..".. 


>  "The server's confidence in the precision of the result count reported. A
non-negative integer from zero to 100. A value of zero means the server has no
idea what the size of the result set is. '100' means the server guarantees
that the value of result count is accurate. A value in between means the
result count is an estimate, where a higher value means that the server has
more confidence in the precision than a lower value."  
>   
> [Note: the committee debated an alternative, where there would be three
values: 'exact', 'estimate', 'no idea'.  However, the committee felt that
might be inflexible, and there might eventually be implementors who would want
four levels, five, etc.  With the zero to 100 approach, a convention could be
recommended to use zero, 50, and 100 for the three-level representation.]  
>   

"four levels, five etc." seems like private conversations to me.. 
We can, of course, think about a model and define a few different "fits"..
Beyond "exact", "no idea" are a few levels of "estimates".. Like "feeling
good estimate", "feeling not too good estimate", "best estimate"..
But we're still missing some important states.. like "volatile".. 
Or "minimum" (at least this many) or maximum (probably no more than..)...

Nothing quantitative much less "linear" here... 

A real application:

We've been doing some work in distributed p2p search networks.. and here
the longer a search runs the larger the set can perhaps be but it can also
shrink as we dynamically adjust the granularity of information.. converging
upon some size in unknown time--- the search is given fuel and like a motorcar
can be re-fueled.. Now.. we have "an idea".. we don't know the limit but at
any given moment we have a certain size of the set we have at that moment..
which is, of course, a different set the next bat of an eye..
 
What I'm suggesting is instead of this pseudo analytical 0-100 stuff we
have nice qualitative words as a minimum public vocabulary such as as
"exact", "unknown", "minimum" (its at least this many), "maximum" (its no
more than this) etc. and allow for "personal extensions" as any term other
than these (or whatever magic words we define).. together with a 
controlled core list of modalities.. (such as shall be, is, was etc.)

Clients would only "need to" understand the 0 (don't know) and 1 (exact)..
but could grasp more..

> That's the server side, comments are welcome. 
> 
> At the other end is the client side. Should the client indicate that it does
or does not care about result size precision? It might want 10 records, any
10, and beyond that it doesn't care if there are 10 or 10 billion, and it does
not want the client to bother to even try to determine or estimate the result
size, as that may be an expensive process. 
> 
> The TC is inclined not to address this, the client end, unless someone can
cite a real requirement (not just  "it seems useful"). So we are soliciting
feedback on this question from SRU implementors.   Can someone assert that if
a request parameter were to be defined pertaining to result size precision,
you would implement it? 
>   
> Ray Denenberg 
>   
>  

--

 Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB 
 Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts 
 Office Leo (R&D): 
   Leopoldstrasse 53-55, D-80802 Munich, 
   Federal Republic of Germany  
 http://www.nonmonotonic.net 
 Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967

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