[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Scan proposal
I'm working a bit on the Scan document.
I don't think we have ever had a serious discussion about scan within this
committee and I would like to raise the following issue (that comes up from time
to time on the SRU list, but I don't think has
been discussed here):
Do we really need to retain the
"scanClause"? Could we instead define separate parameters for index
and start term?
The scanClause was defined as such in the early
scan version in order to re-use the seach clause definition from CQL (and
actually the history goes back further than that - there was originally a
Z39.50/asn.1 analogy that got carried over to SRU) and I'm not even sure that
this "re-use" ever even made sense. But in any case, don't we want to
decouple Scan from CQL? Or do we?
Another reason: the Scan clause includes a
relation, which I think is completely superfluous. Nobody has ever explained,
without much pain, how any relation other than 'equal' makes sense in a scan
clause.
A third reason: we had talked about (ok, I suppose
at sometime we did discuss Scan, then) the start term being optional, so if
omitted would default to the first term in the index - say that someone wants to
scan from the start of the index but doesn't know what the first term in the
index is, it is difficult to formulate the request when the start term is
mandatory.
Could we at least define both a Scan 1.2 and Scan
2.0, and make this change in 2.0?
Opinions please!
--Ray
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]