 |
 |
Common features that end up in extraData are obvious candidates for formal addition to the standard. Ralph > -----Original Message----- > From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward C. Zimmermann > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 6:09 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: <displayTerm> as a subelement of <term> in Scan responses > > 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 (the effective functionality of DisplayTerm but with a slightly > different semantics) also hint and help. These could be important for some > barrier free applications. > > Examples of where hint and help are useful are plenty. My suggestion to have > these in the response and in the terms... [Note: ***response*** too!] > > This seems more consistent and logical to me.. fits well in an alignment of > Facet and Scan.. and better reflects the consequences of recasting the > semantics for value away from "exactly as it appears in the index" (which I > never followed) towards what we've called "anything goes" and "server knows > best" (which is probably what many of us have been doing the whole time). > > > > > 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? > 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. > > 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