I agree that facets should be aligned with scan. The most common end use
of both facet and scan results in a given UI are essentially the same -
to create a link to a subsequent search. In fact I've implemented facet
as an extension in SRU 1.2, and in doing so I re-used the term, value
and numberOfRecords elements as seen in a standard SRU scan response.

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

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."

IMO this definition should also apply to term in facets, due to their
similarities in use.

All the best,

              '.    ,'.         John Harrison
             '  `  '  '         University of Liverpool
 c h e s h i r e  |  3          e: [log in to unmask]
                  v             w:
              `-..;.'           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:
> 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
> > >
> > >