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  October 2010

ZNG October 2010

Subject:

Re: <displayTerm> as a subelement of <term> in Scan responses

From:

John Harrison <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:29:28 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (181 lines)

On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 11:09 +0100, Edward C. Zimmermann wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:53:19 +0100, John Harrison wrote
> 
> > 
> > There would seem to be a clear use-case for displayTerm, although I
> > confess I've never figured out how to implement it tidily in our search
> > engine.
> 
> I would like to suggest that depreciation does not mean that the
> "functionality" would go away but could still live on in an optional
> <extraTermData> which can contain in addition to an element for alternative
> display

Yes, I got that.

> > 
> > At first I was horrified by the "anything goes" proposal for the search
> > term value, but then I read on a little further and came round to the
> > idea. However I would tighten up the definition a little to something
> > more like:
> > 
> > "A term that when used in a search of the same index, produces an
> > appropriate search response, consisting of 1 or more record(s). 
> > Where a numberOfRecords is also supplied by the scan response, the subsequent
> > search should return the specified number of records."
> 
> Was that not the implicit intent of the "exactly as it appears in the index"
> following an assumption that terms in an index are terms in records that can
> be found whence a term "exactly as it appears in the index" will return 1 or
> more records?

Yes, I guess that was the implicit intent. What I'd tried to do was to
make the reasoning explicit, while removing the requirement that the
term value had to be "exactly as it appears in the index", to cover the
examples already given on the list, and allow your anything goes
approach. However...

> Technically being in the index does not guarantee that a search response will
> return any records but we've come to assume that these terms when used as a
> search term would produce an appropriate search response consisting of 1 or
> more records--- which btw. a number of systems don't always deliver (and since
> my engine has a facility for search time stop words I can well see use cases
> of my own engine that don't deliver). Effectively its been "what the server
> that supplied the term deems appropriate" and we've had wishing thinking that
> the server would deem appropriate a search response, consisting of 1 or more
> record(s). I'd like to leave this ambiguity in.

... having spent a little more time thinking about this, I've remembered
that one of the services I've written would violate this on occasion,
through no fault of its own. So I would actually like to keep the
ambiguity in as well :) I guess this might also affect the wording of
the definition of numberOfRecords...?

All the best,
John


> I think the important issue here is that the term is supplied by the server
> and the server provides a search response as it intended. It might be the
> desire of the operator of the search server to provide service that fulfill
> their customers' expectations but these issues are "tar pits" outside the
> realm of protocols. 


> 
> > 
> > IMO this definition should also apply to term in facets, due to their
> > similarities in use.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> > 
> > All the best,
> > John
> > 
> > -- 
> >               '.    ,'.         John Harrison
> >              '  `  '  '         University of Liverpool
> >  c h e s h i r e  |  3          e: [log in to unmask]
> >                   v             w: www.cheshire3.org
> >               `-..;.'           t: 0151 7954271
> >                 ..,     (c)
> > 
> > On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:04 +0100, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> > > The utility of displayTerm (vs. actualTerm) was illustrated  many years ago
> > > during early implementation of Z39.50 browse/scan.  You'd have to look up
> > > that discussion in the archive, but basically, an implementation had an
> > > index where terms where not very user friendly but were much more efficient
> > > for searching than their corresponding displayTerms. I don't recall who the
> > > implementer was, but there was a real implementation.
> > > 
> > > Of course this was for scan (or "browse" as we called it in Z39.50), not for
> > > facets.
> > > 
> > > My position on this is that scan and facets should be aligned in this
> > > matter. That is, they should both have displayTerm or neither should. That
> > > means the OASIS committee should consider depricating displayTerm from Scan.
> > > I don't say it SHOULD DEPRICATE it, it should consult with Z39.50 and SRU
> > > implementors to see if displayTerm is still necessary/useful. That was the
> > > purpose of Ralph's posting to the SRU list. If it seems that displayTerm
> > > should remain in scan then I think it should be added to the facet response.
> > > If it seems nobody cares whether it is retained or not then it should be
> > > dropped from scan 2.0 (and not added to the facet response).
> > > 
> > > --Ray
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors
> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LeVan,Ralph
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:07 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: <displayTerm> as a subelement of <term> in Scan responses
> > > 
> > > Pretty much all the conversation on that list has been about changes to the
> > > facet response and the only controversial change is my desire to add a
> > > displayTerm.
> > > 
> > > Here's a pointer to the achive for this month:
> > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/search-ws-comment/201010/threads.ht
> > > ml
> > > 
> > > Ralph
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors 
> > > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 1:50 PM
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject: Re: <displayTerm> as a subelement of <term> in Scan responses
> > > > 
> > > > Can you link to the thread in the archives of the list, or is it (like 
> > > > most of our lists, for no good reason) private?
> > > > 
> > > > I am curious what the arguments against it are. It seems like a good 
> > > > idea to me?
> > > > 
> > > > But I do not use Scan at all.
> > > > 
> > > > I do not use facetting through SRU at all, but if/when I do, I believe 
> > > > I'd use displayTerm if it was there.
> > > > 
> > > > LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> > > > > There's an overlong debate going on in the search-ws-comment mail
> > > list
> > > > ([log in to unmask]<mailto:search-ws-
> > > > [log in to unmask]>) about including a displayTerm as a 
> > > > subelement of <term> in a facet response.  The feelings against
> > > including
> > > > displayTerm are so strong as to suggest that it should be deprecated
> > > in Scan.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been the one arguing for the inclusion of displayTerm for
> > > consistency with
> > > > Scan, but I don't use it myself in any of my implementations.  So, my
> > > question for
> > > > you all is: do any of you actually use the displayTerm in your
> > > responses?  If not,
> > > > I'll happily drop my arguments.  If so, can you provide a good use
> > > case?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Ralph
> > > > >
> > > > >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 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
-- 
John Harrison <[log in to unmask]>
University of Liverpool

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