[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [search-ws] Same container...
I guess I find the idea of "abstracted structure" to be an
oxymoron. Structure in the absence of schema is meaningless. Just do
x-query.
Ralph From: Kerry Blinco [mailto:kblinco@powerup.com.au] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:56 AM To: search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [search-ws] Same container... Hi Ray
I've summarised in really really plain english the rather complex
discussions I've been having with Nigel Ward and Nick Nicholas here
about the container / element question. (very plain english to
make sure I have understood what they have been trying to explain to me in
rather more complex language ...)
1) If you want to do complex searches and you
know the schema don't reinvent xquery just do xquery
2) The benefit of CQL is that it is an
abstraction and allows you to construct a query that doesn't just search on one
schema. You need an abstraction for structure. (container, element
whatever..) This isn't the same as using xquery as it allows
you to search across metadata schema and regardless of the internal
storage structure (isn't this one reasons cql is powerful and useful?) eg
so you can say find me this with author (x) and a date
(y) in the same container whether the data is found in a DC
record or the same contribute container of a LOM record.
3) Although in theory this abstraction could
be nested deeply, we don't have a real use case for more than 1 parent
container. In order to make this work though the context sets and the
indexes that support them have to be carefully defined. The concept
behind constructing these context set abstractions are often difficult to
explain to the community as they have the appearance of "flattening"
the structure or precombining terms whereas what they are doing is
creating indexes for abstract concepts...
4) We find that the naming of the naming of
indexes in context sets adds to the confusion ... Its often hard to
convince someone that DC.Title is really semantically equivalent to
X.Title (where X is my favorite schema...) whereas
they might be convinced that Title in their favorite schema is
equivalent to some more independently labeled title..
Yet we REALLY want to encourage re-use to enable cross searching
etc..
Thanks
Kerry
Kerry
Blinco
e-Framework and Standards Manager, Link Affiliates, University of Southern Queensland; and Technical Standards Adviser to the Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). Australia. Email: kblinco@powerup.com.au Phone: +61 7 3871 2699 Ph (Mobile) : +61 419 787 992 The information contained in this e-mail message and any files may be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal professional privilege. If you think you may not be the intended recipient, or if you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not reproduce any part of this e-mail or disclose its contents to any other party. This email represents the views of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly states otherwise. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]