RE: [search-ws-comment]DisplayTerm // Forms versus Scan and Facet // was: ....

["Edward C. Zimmermann" <edz@nonmonotonic.net>]

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