[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [search-ws-comment]DisplayTerm // Forms versus Scan and Facet // was: ....
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:21:49 -0400, LeVan,Ralph wrote > Sorry, but the parallels between <term> in a facet response and > <term> in a Scan response seem so clear to me. I agree absolutely! From a certain distance they are the same. That's why I've come to my anti-DisplayTerm (and anti "as its in the index") position. The text: "The term, exactly as it appears in the index." does not reflect our agreement on "anything goes". It must be changed to reflect our paradigm. > The subelements of <term> in a Scan response are <value> (equivalent > to <actualTerm>), <numberOfRecords> (equivalent to <count>), <displayTerm> > > (missing equivalent), <whereInList> (clearly as Scan specific value) > and <extraTermData>. > > I notice that our standard extensibility mechanism has been omitted from > facets, so I'd like to suggest that we put <extraTermData> in. That's OK. Get rid of DisplayTerm and you can use extraTermData in your profile to include a displayed term... I can use it for help, hints etc. As an optional element I think we all get our cake! > > For the purposes of parallelism, I'd be willing to add <requestURL> > to the <term> in a Scan response. If the purpose of having it in > facets is to make life easier for thin clients, I'd suggest that the > same is true for Scan. Agreed.. And how about we change the wording for value (and the optional DisplayTerm) in Scan? > > 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 Telephone: Voice:= +49 (89) 385-47074 Corp.Fax:= +49 (89) 692-8150 Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]