OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

search-ws-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [search-ws-comment] RE: Proposal to remove facet range feature from SRU 2.0


I notice that the CQL diagnostics are omitted.  How should I refer to
them in the Scan document?  We ought to have some sort of pointer to
them in both SearchRetrieve and Scan documents.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:38 AM
> To: 'Edo Plantinga'; 'Edward C. Zimmermann'; Denenberg, Ray;
search-ws-
> comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: LeVan,Ralph; 'OASIS SWS TC'; 'Robert van de Rijt'; '[name removed by OASIS admin]'
> Subject: RE: [search-ws-comment] RE: Proposal to remove facet range
feature
> from SRU 2.0
> 
> See the lastest SRU 2.0 draft,
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/search-
> ws/download.php/39444/sr
> u-2-0-draft-september-21-2010.doc
> 
> Note that the range facet parameters have all been removed.   I think
this
> reflect consensus among us and that all outstanding issues are
resolved.
> 
> --Ray
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edo Plantinga [mailto:Edo.Plantinga@ictu.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 8:03 AM
> To: Edward C. Zimmermann; Denenberg, Ray;
> search-ws-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: LeVan,Ralph; OASIS SWS TC; Robert van de Rijt; [name removed by OASIS admin]
> Subject: RE: [search-ws-comment] RE: Proposal to remove facet range
feature
> from SRU 2.0
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> It has been quiet on this topic for a while.... Do we now have
consensus on
> this topic? That is:
> - There will be no client-defined date ranges in SRU 2.0.
> - Things like publicationDate="Last week" or publicationDate="Last
hour"
> will be interpreted by the *server* to reflect the correct range.
> - There is no need for an additional XML definition for this, as this
model
> fits nicely in the current XML request and response definition for
facets.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Edo
> 
> >>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> >>Van: Edward C. Zimmermann [mailto:edz@bsn.com]
> >>Verzonden: zondag 12 september 2010 19:12
> >>Aan: Edo Plantinga; Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress;
> >>search-ws-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>CC: 'LeVan,Ralph'; 'OASIS SWS TC'
> >>Onderwerp: RE: [search-ws-comment] RE: Proposal to remove facet
range
> >>feature from SRU 2.0
> >>
> >>There are a number of ways to crack the same nut.
> >>
> >>I see  lastWeek in the
> >>   bib.date.published=lastWeek
> >>as nothing more than just another date or date-range but relative
not
> >>to some fixed mutual time (the civil calender) but to some other
> >>volatile time--- in my case the date and time at which the query is
> >>submitted. In ISO 8601 we have YYYY-Www[-D] formats and lastWeek is
> >>just as I see it a local extension to define YYY-Wxx where xx=
Current
> >>week - 1. In my implementation I just extended my date parser with a
> >>number of local terms which I interpret as I have seen fitting.
> >>
> >>There is in my system no "fulltext" term "LastWeek" or "Week"
> >>or--- OK there can be as the date parser is used to determined the
> >>dates for the index during index time and a date field containing
such
> >>as term would define a specific date w.r.t. the index time (for good
> >>or for bad)---- and searching for the fulltext term would (probably)
> >>find nothing. Searching however for the date, resp. range, would
just
> >>as searching for Oct in a field where the date was encoded
2002-10-10
> >>should fail but as a date should succeed, conversely 2002-10-10
finds
> >>10 Oct 2002. A scan of date field in my implementation produces the
> >>dates as ISO 8601 dates---- its actually a bit more schizophrenic as
> >>my object fields (dates and date ranges for example) are also
> >>searchable and scanable as text.
> >>
> >>I've found this quite convenient as it lets me search, for example,
> >>for "today" rather than asking someone to tell me what today is from
> >>the perspective of the index--- something that the searcher might
not
> >>even know (only "today" in the context of some today normalized to a
> >>UTC date/time range).
> >>
> >>This method could also be used to allow for some interesting kinds
of
> >>queries including as might be desired named dates (or ranges) that
are
> >>not in constant position within the civil calendar--- for example
> >>Easter (defined as the first Sunday following a full moon occurring
on
> >>or following the spring equinox), Rosh Hashanah, Chinese Moon day,
> >>Ramadan etc.
> >>
> >>The facet part is really distinct from the index as used for search.
> >>Does the result set contain records that were first published last
> >>week? Within the past hour? etc.. What makes technical sense as a
> >>solution to these needs (and speed, efficiency etc.) are really
> >>application (and also data) specific, viz.
> >>implementation details and not really method..
> >>
> >>
> >>On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:48:07 -0400, Ray Denenberg, Library of
Congress
> >>wrote
> >>> Edo - Again I think we're not completely clear about your
> >>index model.
> >>>
> >>> If you have an index/facet 'publicationDate', it could have
> >>terms like:
> >>> 'lastWeek', 'thisWeek',  .... or it could be an index of dates.
> >>>  But it can't be both.
> >>>
> >>> So when you suggested (several messages ago):
> >>>
> >>> "bib.date.published=lastWeek Its up to your server to
> >>understand what
> >>> the date "lastWeek" (or "Last Week" or "This Week" or .. .)
> >>means and
> >>> do the right thing...."
> >>>
> >>> ... that raised some questions. To start:  Do you have an
> >>index,  with
> >>> a name like 'publicationDate' (it doesn't matter what it's
> >>> called) with terms like 'lastWeek', 'thisWeek'  .... AND for each
> >>> term, an index by that name with associated dates.  So for
> >>example if
> >>> there were a term 'lastWeek' in the index 'publicationDate'
> >>then there
> >>> would be an index 'lastWeek' whose terms are all dates, from last
> >>> week.
> >>>
> >>> Is this your model?
> >>>
> >>> --Ray
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Edo Plantinga [mailto:Edo.Plantinga@ictu.nl]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 6:09 AM
> >>> To: Denenberg, Ray; search-ws-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>> Cc: OASIS SWS TC; LeVan,Ralph
> >>> Subject: [search-ws-comment] RE: Proposal to remove facet range
> >>> feature from SRU 2.0
> >>>
> >>> Ray,
> >>>
> >>> In my opinion there is no need for extra fields in the XML
> >>response,
> >>> as "Last Week", "Last Month" etc. behave just like normal
> >>facet terms
> >>> from the client's perspective (i.e. just like "Nuthatches"
> >>and "Birds"
> >>> in the example of SRU 2.0). I believe how the server decides to
> >>> implement the standard (using extra indexes or using CQL-like
> >>> constraints) is up to the server, and does not need to be
> >>specified in
> >>> the SRU standard (naturally they do need to be defined for the
> >>> programmers that will build the server).
> >>>
> >>> If the ranges of the defined terms are not obvious, say
> >>"Old books",
> >>> "New books", the designer of the service can choose more
> >>descriptive
> >>> labels like "Old books (1900 and before)" and "New books
> >>(after 1900)
> >>> ". This is how you would present it to the user, and in my opinion
> >>> that is all we need. I do not think that the facetLowest and
> >>> facetHighest values need to be machine-readable, because I
> >>can't see
> >>> any scenario's in which a computer will actually do something with
> >>> these values (other than presenting them to the user). But
> >>maybe I am
> >>> missing something. As benefit of not defining extra
> >>response elements,
> >>> the standard will be kept as simple as possible. I am
> >>curious to hear
> >>> your opinion.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Edo
> >>>
> >>> >>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> >>> >>Van: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
> >>> >>Verzonden: dinsdag 7 september 2010 20:35
> >>> >>Aan: Edo Plantinga; search-ws-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>> >>CC: 'OASIS SWS TC'; 'LeVan,Ralph'
> >>> >>Onderwerp: RE: Proposal to remove facet range feature from SRU
2.0
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Edo - I suggest the following approach for the
> >>server-defined facet
> >>> >>range feature.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>First, assume a model where you for a given range-type
> >>facet, like
> >>> >>publication date, you have two indexes: (1) a
> >>publicationDate index,
> >>> >>where you index all the publication dates; and (2) a
> >>> >>publicationDateRange index with terms like 'thisWeek',
'lastWeek',
> >>> >>'twoWeeksAgo','lastTwoWeeks','lastMonth', etc.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>And say that the latter index is the facet.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Of course there needs to be a way to express the
> >>relationship of the
> >>> >>latter index to the first.  We can solve that problem in
> >>the schema:
> >>> >>add an element with a name like
> >><associatedIndexIfRangeFacet> under
> >>> >><facet>.  In addition we could add in the schema, for each facet
> >>> >>term, its lowest and highest value, under <term>.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>--Ray
> >>> >>
> >>> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>> >>From: Edo Plantinga [mailto:Edo.Plantinga@ictu.nl]
> >>> >>Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 11:16 AM
> >>> >>To: Denenberg, Ray; search-ws-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>> >>Cc: OASIS SWS TC; LeVan,Ralph
> >>> >>Subject: RE: Proposal to remove facet range feature from SRU 2.0
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Good to see Ray's proposal, needless to say I agree.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>However, in my opinion the 2.0 specs should mention the
> >>alternative
> >>> >>mechanism: the *server-defined* facet ranges (only
> >>> >>*client-defined* facet ranges are dropped according to Ray's
> >>> >>proposal). Ideally there would also be an example of how the
> >>> >>server-client interaction messages are handled (such as
> >>in Edward's
> >>> >>recent post to this mailing list).
> >>> >>Otherwise people may conclude that facet ranges are not
> >>possible in
> >>> >>SRU, which is not the case.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Regards,
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Edo
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
> >>> OASIS Search Web Services TC.
> >>>
> >>> In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License
> >>terms and to
> >>> minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
> >>before posting.
> >>>
> >>> Subscribe: search-ws-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: search-ws-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>> List help: search-ws-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>> List archive:
> >>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/search-ws-comment/
> >>> Feedback License:
> >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
> >>> List Guidelines:
http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
> >>> Committee:
> >>>
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=search-ws
> >>> Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
> >>> OASIS Search Web Services TC.
> >>>
> >>> In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License
> >>terms and to
> >>> minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required before
> >>> posting.
> >>>
> >>> Subscribe: search-ws-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: search-ws-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>> List help: search-ws-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>> List archive:
> >>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/search-ws-comment/
> >>> Feedback License:
> >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
> >>> List Guidelines:
http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
> >>> Committee: http://www.oasis-
> >>> open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=search-ws Join OASIS:
> >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/join/
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
> http://www.nonmonotonic.net
> >>Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967
> >>
> >>
> 
> --
> This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
OASIS
> Search Web Services TC.
> 
> In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and to
> minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required before
posting.
> 
> Subscribe: search-ws-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> Unsubscribe: search-ws-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> List help: search-ws-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/search-ws-comment/
> Feedback License:
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
> Committee:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=search-ws
> Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/
> 




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]