[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [search-ws] Multiple Query Types
IMHO, We should really be looking at OpenSearch and OpenSearch description documents for describing the queries that are supported by a server and what parameters the query supports. This implies to me that we not do the equivalent functionality elsewhere (e.g. Explain Record). LeVan,Ralph wrote: > > I’d like to bring up the topic of multiple query types again. > > I think we have eliminated the use of a query-type parameter as a > solution. This would have used the query parameter to carry queries of > all types and the query-type parameter would have specified how the > query was to be interpreted. Explain records would have listed the > types of queries supported by the server. The objection to this > parameter is that it adds another parameter to the query (and the > documentation). > > A simpler solution is to use the name of the query parameter itself to > indicate the type of query. For instance, our current query parameter > might be renamed CQLQuery and a new query parameter of LuceneQuery > might be specified to support Lucene queries. > > One way to do this would be to have the standard specify the parameter > to be used for every type of query we can think of. > I think above is inappropriate and unworkable. > The Explain record for the database would again list the supported > query types. This simplifies interoperability, but leaves the > standards body with the perpetual task of adding new search types. > +1 > My preference is that the standards body not specify the name of the > query parameters. > +1 > Instead, the Explain record, which already lists the supported query > types, also specify the name of the associated query parameter. > -1. We should use the OpenSearch description document for describing queries and their params. > This allows for much easier local extensibility. > > The objection to this scheme is that trivial interoperability goes > away: SRU URLs cannot be constructed without reference to the Explain > record. > > So, here’s my compromise position: do it my way. Well, that and have > the standards body create a profile where we specify the names of the > parameters for query types that we think might be useful/common. > I am not sure what "do it my way" above refers to - so I can't comment. > Feedback would be appreciated! > > Ralph > -- Regards, Farrukh Najmi Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]